Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. Speaker made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Frank Edward Clarke, esquire, J.P., late Member for the county of Kent (Dartford Division), and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered.

The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means (Captain Bourne): Two of these Amendments are to increase the limit for borrowing on behalf of the dock undertaking of the promoters from 60 years to 80 years. These were recommended by the Committee on the Bill, and were agreed to by the House on a Special Resolution last Monday. The other Amendments are purely drafting.

Amendments made.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of suggesting to the French Government that the Franco-Spanish frontier should be re-opened until such time as the Portuguese frontier of Spain and the sea inspection scheme are in operation, with a view to securing equality of treatment to both sides and in order to avoid the possibility of intervention working to the advantage of one side only?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): My Noble Friend's information is that the land frontier between Spain and Portugal, like the land frontier between Spain and France, is closed to the transit of goods, the export of which is forbidden by the Non-Intervention Agreement. The Sea Observation Scheme, as the hon. Member is aware, has been and still is in operation with respect to both sides in Spain. His Majesty's Government are not, therefore, prepared to accept the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that the French Government took the decision to close the frontier entirely on their own initiative, would it not be entirely within their discretion to open them again until such time as the whole scheme of the Non-Intervention Committee is in operation?

Mr. Butler: We must leave such a decision to the French Government.

Duchess of Atholl: Is it not notorious that the present sea scheme is extremely ineffective as there are certain deficiencies in it?

Mr. Butler: The Noble Lady is right in saying that there are certain deficiencies in the present sea scheme and that is why a new scheme has been put forward, to enable the deficiencies to be repaired.

Duchess of Atholl: But is it not unfair that the control of the land frontier, which means so much to the Spanish Government, should be effective while the sea control scheme is so deficient because there is so very little control?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the suggestion that there is very little control. There is a good sea observation in existence which is now to be improved.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is the hon. Member aware that Mussolini is boasting of the number of bombs he has dropped?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the sending of an international commission to Spain to investigate the bombing of civilian populations?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether the commission of inquiry into the bombing of civilian populations in Spain is yet complete; and when it is likely to start for Spain?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The House will be aware that during the last few weeks His Majesty's Government have been endeavouring to form an International Commission which would he prepared to proceed to the scene of an aerial bombardment in Spain and report on the facts, at the request of the competent Spanish authorities concerned. I regret to say that it has, for various reasons, been found impossible to arrange the formation of such a Commission on an International basis. His Majesty's Government propose, therefore, in the hope that that may be acceptable to the two parties in Spain, to despatch to France a Commission consisting of two British nationals for the purpose in view, at as early a date as possible.

Mr. Henderson: After this Commission has been despatched to France will it be a question of their being invited by either party in Spain to make an inquiry, or will they be able to make their inquiry as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: They will only proceed on the invitation of one or other of the parties in Spain.

Miss Rathbone: As it is nearly two months since this commission was first mooted, has the influence of the British Government been unable to secure the co-operation of at least two or three other European Governments?

The Prime Minister: That is clearly the case.

Mr. Mander: Can the Prime Minister say what Governments were prepared to co-operate?

The Prime Minister: Not without notice.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that the Belgian non-intervention officer, who was wounded on board the British ship "Yorkbrook," at Valencia, on 10th July, by the bombing of hostile aircraft, shall be compensated; and whether he has any statement to make on this further attack on the officers of the Non-Intervention Board?

Mr. Butler: I am informed that the Non-Intervention Board provide compensation in a case of this kind. As regards the second part of the question, the question of any injuries sustained by inter-

national observers in the course of air raids on Spanish ports is one for the Non-Intervention Committee.

Mr. Mander: Is it not really intolerable that non-intervention officers should be continually bombed by the members of the Non-Intervention Committee itself?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that Sir Robert Hodgson will not return to his post until His Majesty's Government have received satisfactory assurances that the bombing of British ships will not be resumed?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps the hon. Lady will be good enough to await the statement which will be made by the Prime Minister at the end of Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the official declaration by the Japanese spokesman in Shanghai that the Japanese Government intend to abolish extra-territorial rights in those portions of China which are in Japanese occupation; and whether he is in a position to make any statement on the matter?

Mr. Butler: The Japanese Government have informed His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo that they have investigated the facts and have ascertained that the statement of the Japanese spokesman was misunderstood. The Japanese Government have no intention of using the present situation in China as a pretext for denying the extra-territorial rights enjoyed by Great Britain and other Powers vis-á-vis China. They consider that this is a question which solely concerns the Powers and China. All that the official spokesman meant to say was that, should individual foreigners contrive to endanger the safety of the Japanese forces or to impede the conduct of their military operations, these forces will naturally take the necessary against them.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: In view of the fact that the Japanese Foreign Office have continually made statements of policy by means of so-called spokesmen, will the hon. Member do his best to make the answer he has given perfectly clear to all concerned in the trade in China?

Mr. Butler: I trust that full publicity will be given to the answer which I have given this afternoon.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Can the hon. Member inform the House why so much attention is being paid to a nation which has not yet declared war on China, but which is carrying on acts of banditry and brutality?

Mr. Butler: Attention is being paid to this matter because of the interest in it as expressed by hon. Members.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that opium is being distributed in China by Japanese employers to their Chinese employés in lieu of regular wages; and whether, as this constitutes a breach of the International Opium Convention, His Majesty's Government will co-operate with the United States Government in making representations to the Japanese Government on the matter?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has no information to this effect, but if the hon. Member will communicate to me any report which has reached him, I will make inquiries.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that this allegation was made at Geneva at a recent meeting of the Commission, and does not the report of that Commission establish the fact that the very serious situation which now exists in China is the result of this widespread drug traffic? Will not the Government do something to deal with the situation?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the serious position in regard to the drug traffic. On this particular instance we have no information. If the hon. Member will give me what information he has I will consider it.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the hon. Member now had an opportunity of considering the recent proceedings at Geneva about this matter, and will he be prepared to make a statement upon it?

Mr. Butler: That is a much larger question that the one on the Paper.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that it is notorious that Japan is conducting the campaign by the use of drugs, will the hon. Member instruct His Majesty's agents in China and Japan to

make a full report on the matter in order that the House may have full guidance?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's consuls have been asked to make a report on this matter.

Mr. Leach: As so little information seems to reach the Foreign Office, may I ask what the Department is doing with its time?

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the embarrassment suffered by British trade in North China arising from the imposition of a new paper currency by the Japanese-controlled Federated Reserve Bank without any backing except a nominal credit of 100,000,000 yen in Japan, the export of which is prohibited, and that British merchants in North China are alarmed lest all currency in North China take the form of inconvertible notes with the effect of preventing British merchants from realising any of their assets; and what action he is taking to protect British trade in this respect?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Representations have already been made to the Japanese Government and His Majesty's Government are continuing to watch the situation closely.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON NAVAL TREATY, 1930 (SUBMARINES).

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been arrived at by the Powers who are not signatories to the London Naval Treaty, 1930, to the request for them to accept the rules relating to the action of submarines as set out in Part IV of the treaty as established rules of international law?

Mr. Butler: Under the terms of the submarine procés-verbal signed in London on 6th November, 1936, copies of that instrument were communicated by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to all Powers not signatories of the London Naval Treaty, 1930, with an invitation to accede. Apart from the II signatories, 37 countries have so far acceded.

Mr. Day: Can the hon. Member say whether any further approach is to be made to other countries?

Mr. Butler: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIAN REFUGEES.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether the personnel of the British consulate in Vienna has been strengthened in view of the increase in work consequent upon the number of persons residing in Austria desiring to reach this country?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) on 23rd June.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "THERESE MOLLER."

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information about the treatment of the crew of the British Shanghai steamer "Therese Moller" which was compelled to spend the winter in the Russian part of the island of Sakhalin?

Mr. Butler: I understand that when this vessel went aground on the coast of Sakhalin in October, 1937, the Soviet authorities refused to allow her salvage to be undertaken by other than Soviet salvage tugs, which, however, were not able to refloat her until May last. My Noble Friend has no official information regarding the treatment of the crew during that period.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is the hon. Member making an inquiry of the Soviet Government on this subject to find out the truth of the matter?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Thurtle: Is it not the invariable practice of the Soviet Government to treat British subjects with all consideration?

Mr. Butler: I certainly hope so.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is it not the fact that while this ship was in this particular port she did not run the risk of bombing?

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Is it not highly important that we should make certain that British seamen are properly treated wherever they are?

Mr. Butler: I have said that I will take the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (TRADING CONCESSIONS, COLONIES).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister when he expects to be in a position to make a statement with regard to the forthcoming negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the German Government in regard to concessions for German trade in certain British territories overseas; and whether such negotiations are to be restricted to trade questions or are to be related to the questions covered by the conversations in December last between Herr Hitler and the present Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Butler: During the negotiations for the amendment of the Anglo-German Payments Agreement, the German Delegation made requests for concessions for German trade in the Colonial Empire. These requests relate solely to points affecting trade with the Colonies and, as the hon. Member was told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 11th July, they are now under consideration by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Bellenger: Are we to understand from that reply that no questions other than trade questions between this country and Germany will be included in these negotiations?

Mr. Butler: These negotiations are connected with requests for concessions for German trade in the Colonial Empire.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

TERRORISM.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will bring the existing state of affairs in Palestine to the notice of the French Government with a view to their ceasing to afford an asylum, in territory under French jurisdiction, to Arab leaders engaged in fomenting and directing the terrorist campaign in Palestine?

Mr. Butler: As in the case of the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, close contact has been and is being maintained with the French Government regarding the alleged political activities of other Arab leaders in the territories under French Mandate.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not abundantly clear that the campaign of terrorism in Palestine is controlled, in-


spired and directed by the Mufti from Syria, and is it not impossible to stop this terrorism in Palestine unless it is dealt with at its source in Syria?

Mr. Butler: I have informed the hon. and gallant Member that close contact has been and is being maintained with the French authorities.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that these Arab leaders are fighting for the independence of their country?

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state how many times the pipe-line in Palestine has been cut since its inception; and how many Arabs have been responsible for its injury and how many Jews, respectively?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am not in a position to supply the statistics for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks. The pipe-line has been attacked on a number of occasions by Arabs. I am not aware that there have been any Jewish attacks upon it.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is this not an additional argument in favour of increasing later the number of Jewish people who are allowed to bear arms?

Mr. MacDonald: I said in answer to a previous question that the matter is under consideration.

SUPERNUMERARY POLICE, SAFAD.

Mr. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the supernumerary police at Safad, Galilee, which were reduced from 27 to 12 during May, have not been restored to their former strength?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I understand that there has been no such reduction as the hon. Member suggests in the number of Jewish supernumerary police employed in Safad. Between 20 and 3o men are still normally on duty there. It has now been arranged in addition for a military detachment to return to Safad.

PARTITION.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Palestine Commission is unable, under

its terms of reference, to consider any settlement other than that of partition, the Government, with a view to seeing whether it might form a basis of negotiation between the parties concerned, will examine the plan put forward by the Emir Abdullah to avoid partition by reconciling Jewish and Arab interests in a united state of Palestine and Transjordania?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I can add nothing to the answers which I have given previously to questions regarding the plan referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Cocks: Will the Minister say whether the Government will examine this plan or ask the High Commissioner to examine it for them?

Mr. MacDonald: The Government have expressed their view that the policy of partition offers the best and most hopeful method of solving the deadlock. At the present moment a Commission is in Palestine making further inquiries into that question, and until that Commission returns to this country I do not think any useful purpose would be served by considering the next step.

Mr. Morgan Jones: In view of the fact that the House of Commons deliberately refused to commit itself on the question of partition will the right hon. Gentleman examine this matter so that the House may have some further information upon this suggestion?

Mr. MacDonald: I have taken note of this suggestion and many other suggestions, but I must say I have no evidence that any suggestion which has yet been put forward would form a basis of agreement between Jews and Arabs. Beyond that I cannot go.

Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the High Commissioner to report on the other plan?

Mr. MacDonald: I cannot add anything to what I have said.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman also considering now the imposition of martial law in Palestine in order that we may get a solution in a time of peace, and not of disorder?

Mr. Speaker: That question does not arise.

SANJAK OF ALEXANDRETTA (ARMENIANS).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the effect of recent events in the Sanjak of Alexandretta on the Armenians previously resident there; and whether the good offices of His Majesty's Government can be utilised to enable those who desire it to secure settlement in a place of greater security?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has no information regarding the effect, if any, of the recent Franco-Turkish Agreement on the future of the Armenian community in the Sanjak, and His Majesty's Government have not been requested to take any special action in their regard.

Mr. Harvey: In view of the alarming reports of the distress and plight of many of these Armenians, will my hon. Friend make inquiries through His Majesty's Consuls as to the position?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly see that we have the latest information on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE SCHEME.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) how many of the 995 lieutenant-commanders on the active list in the five groups, as recognised in the marriage allowance scheme by different basic pay, are exceptionally in receipt of both lodging and marriage allowances; and of these how many are in short-course appointments of three months' duration or less;
(2) how many of the 995 lieutenant-commanders on the active list are now in receipt of lodging and compensation or its substitute under the marriage allowance scheme, and how many of these, married and single, separately stated, belong to each of the five groups as recognised in the scheme by different basic pay?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): I regret that the information required cannot be collected without the expenditure of a prohibitive amount of time and labour. If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me know what is the point he wishes to establish, I will

do my best to have it investigated and send him a reply.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The point I wish to establish is how many of these officers benefit under these marriage allowances?

Mr. Cooper: As I have explained, the labour which would be involved in making inquiries of every station and ship would be really incommensurate with the importance of the point.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: There are certain officers getting lodging and compensation and marriage allowance, and it ought not to be difficult to find out the number.

TRAINING SHIP "CALEDONIA."

Mr. Gallacher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the extent of the further outbreak of rheumatic fever amongst the lads in the training ship "Caledonia," at Rosyth; and what steps have been taken to make an examination into the sewage system?

Mr. Cooper: There have been 31 fresh cases of rheumatic fever amongst the trainees in "Caledonia" since 1st April last, a ratio of approximately 18 per 1,000 strength. The sewage arrangements both on board the "Caledonia" and on shore have been under continuous observation by the Departments concerned and, except for one temporary breakdown, against the recurrence of which steps have been taken, no deficiency has been reported. The pumps will again be overhauled during "Caledonia's" summer vacation.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister arrange to have a special investigation into the sewerage arrangements, which could quite easily be dangerous to the lads, and also will he take into consideration the fact that the ship is continually lying in still waters?

Mr. Cooper: I have had an investigation made, and my hon. Friend the Civil Lord is there to-day, but I do not think there is any reason to suppose that rheumatism could possibly come from any defects in sewerage.

ROYAL NAVAL FILM CORPORATION.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the object of Mr. Noel Coward's visits to the Fleet in connection with ship cinemas; and whether there is a Naval


officer who acts as liaison officer between the Navy and the cinema trade?

Mr. Cooper: Mr. Noel Coward has consented to serve as a member of the Committee of the Royal Naval Film Corporation, and the object of his recent visits to the Home Fleet, Mediterranean Fleet and the three depots has been to ascertain the type of film most appreciated by the personnel. No charges have fallen upon public funds or on those of the Royal Naval Film Corporation as Mr. Coward has generously met all expenses himself. The Deputy-Director of Personal Services for Personnel, in his capacity as Chairman of the Working Committee, at present carries out the work of liaison officer with the cinema trade as part of his ordinary duties in connection with the personnel.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the First Lord satisfied that the ratings in the Fleet are fully aware that no charges fall on public funds or on canteen funds in respect of the work of the gentlemen whose names have been quoted which has so greatly benefited the ships' cinemas?

Mr. Cooper: There is no reason to suppose that the ratings have any suspicion that any charge falls on public funds. I know they are very pleased to have this attention paid to their wishes.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether these officers are endeavouring to see that the same amount of British films are used as under the Quota Bill?

Mr. Mander: Will there be any films showing British merchant vessels being bombed?

MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS (VISITS, SUBMARINES).

Mr. Hulbert: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many Royal Naval Reserve officers availed themselves of the opportunity of attending courses in two of His Majesty's submarine which recently visited London?

Mr. Cooper: Two hundred and eighteen merchant naval officers visited these submarines, but I regret that I cannot say how many of these were also officers of the Royal Naval Reserve.

TANKERS.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he

is aware that Japan is constructing a series of 20-knot 10,000-ton deadweight oil-tankers which can only serve warlike and not commercial purposes; and whether he is considering suitable counter measures?

Mr. Cooper: I am aware of the construction of such vessels, but am unable to accept the assumption that they cannot serve commercial purposes. I am not quite clear what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "counter measures," but I can assure him that our own tanker position is constantly under review.

LIEUTENANT-COMMANDERS (SPECIALIST ALLOWANCE).

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the lieutenant-commanders on the active list are specialist officers; and, of these, in how many cases does the specialist allowance fall short of, amount to, or exceed 2S. 6d. a day?

Mr. Cooper: Of the 969 lieutenant-commanders now on the active list, 606 hold specialist qualifications. Of these 324 are eligible for specialist allowance of 2S, 6d, a day, 19 for 2S, and 76 for 4S.; the remainder receive allowances which vary according to the appointments they hold, but where these appointments involve specialists' duties the allowances are generally in excess of 2s, 6d, a day.

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR COUNCIL.

Captain Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decisions were made at the recent meeting of the International Sugar Council; and whether he is in a positiin to make a statement?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The present meeting of the International Sugar Council is not yet completed, and I am not, therefore, in a position to make a statement at present.

KENYA (ITALIAN POST).

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Italian forces have recently occupied a post in British territory on the Eastern shore of Lake Rudolf (Kenya Colony); and what steps he is taking in the matter?

Mr. M. MacDonald: A post was established by the local Italian authorities in October, 1937, in the situation mentioned by the hon. Member; but, on the matter being brought to the notice of the Italian Government, instructions were immediately given for it to be withdrawn. A further Italian post near the Eastern shore of Lake Rudolf has recently been reported, and is at present the subject of discussion with the Italian Government.

Mr. Pritt: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about similar activities on the Western shore of the lake?

Mr. MacDonald: I have no information, but there have been some cases where, by inadvertence and lack of knowledge of the run of the frontier, posts have been established just across the frontier, but in every case, on the attention of the Italian authorities being drawn to it, those posts have been withdrawn. Beyond that, I have no information.

Mr. Pritt: Will the right hon. Gentleman watch the new inadvertence on the Western shore, if it be the case, which might involve inadvertence through the Sudan and into Egypt?

Sir A. Sinclair: Has not the right hon. Gentleman said that, in spite of previous inadvertences having been repaired, a further case of inadvertence has occurred in the same district, and that there are now posts there?

Mr. MacDonald: This is a case of one post, which has been reported, but I can say that we have taken the matter up with the Italian authorities in Rome.

Sir A. Sinclair: Have they inadvertently gone to the place where the previous cases of inadvertence occurred?

Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir. This is a different part.

Mr. Pritt: Has the right hon. Gentleman any suspicion whether this inadvertence means operating in advance their side of the frontier rectifications under their share of the Anglo-Italian Agreement?

Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir. I cannot add anything more regarding this matter, as it is under discussion.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember the inadvertence that happened at Walwal?

NORTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVES).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action the Northern Rhodesian Government has taken in respect to the three-government agreement of August, 1936, in the matter of rest places, medical, and other assistance for native labourers seeking or returning from work on the main labour routes; and whether a supervising officer has yet been appointed?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Medical facilities are available on all the main labour routes. The Northern Rhodesia Government is considering plans for the erection of rest houses where necessary on these routes. I have approved the appointment of a Labour Officer of the Northern Rhodesia Government to be stationed in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman press on the Northern Rhodesian Government the need for action, especially in view of the fact that in the Pym report it is definitely stated that nothing so far had been done?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir, I propose to address a despatch to the Governor on the matter.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to improve the conditions of emigration from Northern Rhodesia to the Lupa gold mines in Tanganyika; and what steps are being taken in Tanganyika to safeguard the industrial and social interests of the natives concerned?

Mr. MacDonald: During the past two years conditions have been much improved on the Lupa goldfields, to which a considerable emigration of labour from Northern Rhodesia takes place. The Government has provided a large staff of administrative, medical, labour and other officers; labour camps have been set up; a hospital and three dispensaries have been established; and there has been a marked improvement in the health of the labour employed.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that steps are to he taken in Northern Rhodesia to recruit in Barotseland 10,000 natives a year for work in the mines in the Union of South Africa; whether he is satisfied with the results in


respect to health and mortality of the tropical natives so employed; and whether the Transvaal Chamber of Mines are prepared to enter into a satisfactory arrangement in respect to travelling costs and transport to and from the work, deferred pay, and the classification of the Barotse?

Mr. MacDonald: The engagement of Barotse natives is only being permitted up to a maximum of 1,500 for an experimental period of one year during which it will be ascertained whether their health on the Rand is satisfactory. The hon. Member may rest assured that further recruitment will not be permitted unless I am fully satisfied with the conditions of health and employment for these natives on the Rand, including the arrangements for transport.

Mr. Creech Jones: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether it is proposed to bring into operation the existing agreement of August, 1936, whereby it is proposed that 10,000 natives from Northern Rhodesia shall be employed on the Rand; and will he urge on the Union of South Africa, that, if they desire to have this labour, they should at least ratify the I.L.O. Convention?

Mr. MacDonald: The whole question of any further recruitment is dependent on my being satisfied with the experiment on which we are engaged at present.

Mr. Paling: Did not the experiment already made prove that the death-rate among these natives is twice as high as it is among other natives and in face of that fact why does the right hon. Gentleman not protect them?

Mr. MacDonald: There has been one previous experiment, but it did not last sufficiently long to give us conclusive data, and that is why a second experiment w as undertaken.

Mr. Paling: Did it not last sufficiently long to prove that twice as many of these natives died?

HONG KONG (NATIVE WORKERS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will institute a special inquiry into the social and industrial conditions of native workers in Hong Kong with a view to reliable information being secured concerning

hours of labour, wages, and infant and adult mortality?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The Governor has recently decided to appoint a full time Labour Officer to the Secretariat for Chinese affairs. Amongst this officer's functions will be investigations into the cost of living, rates of wages, and the local industrial conditions to which the hon. Member refers. As regards infantile and adult mortality, reliable information of deaths is already recorded in Hong Kong. But information on mortality rates is admittedly unreliable, partly on account of an incomplete compliance with the law for the registration of births (which is being remedied by administrative action) and partly owing to the fact that a considerable section of the Chinese population have no fixed habitation in the Colony. In the circumstances, I do not think that a special inquiry would be helpful.

Mr. Sorensen: Can we anticipate a report from the Governor dealing with the matter which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned; and, if so, will he give some idea of when the report will be available to Members and the public?

Mr. MacDonald: A Labour Officer will be appointed as soon as a suitable candidate is available. We are looking for one now. No doubt, in due course, that Labour Officer will present a report on these matters.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when he anticipates a report; and seeing that in other parts of the Colonial Empire there is considerable distress and discontent would it not be well to expedite the report?

Mr. MacDonald: Certainly I am anxious to receive a report as soon as possible, but we must allow the new Labour Officer a considerable time to make his investigations after he has been appointed.

TANGANYIKA.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give comparative figures for Tanganyika between 1913, 1921, and 1937, respecting native and white population, volume of trade, expenditure on social services, wage levels, and mortality; and the num-


ber and percentage of the white population who are of German origin?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer contains columns of statistics, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

PART I.


—
1913.
1921.
1937.


I.—Population.


Native
…
…
4,145,000
4,107,000
5,140,000


European
…
…
5,300
2,400
9,107





1912.
1921.
1937.


II.—Volume of trade.
£
£
£


Imports
…
…
2,295,000
1,426,125
3,924,295


Exports
…
…
1,570,900
1,246,870
4,969,452





£3,865,900
£2,672,995
£8,893,747

III.—Expenditure on social services.

1921.
1937.





£
£


Education
…
…
3,000
92,313


Public Health
…
…
91,000
201,280


Agriculture
…
…
6,000
62,199





£100,000
£355,792

IV.—Wáge Levels.

No records are available for 1913.

In 1921 wages varied considerably, being highest in towns and on the coast. On the coast wages varied as follow:





Per month.





Florins.


Unskilled labour
…
…
8–15


In remote areas
…
…
4–6

For 1937 more definite figures are available:





Per month.





Shillings.


Skilled labour
…
…
15–200


Semi-skilled
…
…
9–60


Unskilled
…
…
4–30

(Daily rates for porters ranged from 20 cents to 80 cents with daily ration at the rate of 10–20 cents.)

V.—Mortality.

No reliable statistics are available for mortality rates in respect of the native population of the Territory for any of the years in question.

A return showing death and invaliding rates among European officers in Tanganyika (and in the other East African Dependencies) is included in a publication entitled "East Africa: Vital Statistics

Following is the answer:

Tables giving the information required in so far as it has been possible to obtain it from the records available in the Colonial Office:

of European Officials: Returns for 1936,"a copy of which is being forwarded to the Library of the House.

PART 2.

The German population amounted in 1937 to 2,981, being approximately 33 per cent, of the total white population of the Territory.

SIERRA LEONE (EDUCATION ORDINANCE).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of widespread opposition to the new Education Ordinance in Sierra Leone; and whether he will institute inquiries with a view to meeting the allegations made by native and other representatives against the ordinance?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am not aware of any widespread opposition in Sierra Leone to the new Education Ordinance. I am informed that the Ordinance as enacted had the full support of a large committee which examined it and which was fully representative of political and educational opinion in the Colony. Subsequent to the publication of the Bill there was ample opportunity for all interested to submit their views upon it, and these received careful consideration. Subsequently the Bill was passed unanimously by the Legislative Council. In these circumstances I see no reason to intervene in the matter.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has had no kind of protest from the natives concerned?

Mr. MacDonald: I have received none.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES.

EDUCATION.

Mr. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the lack of adequate facilities for higher education in the West Indies; and whether the terms of reference of the Royal Commission will include inquiry into this need and into the general provisions for education?

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on conditions in the West Indies will include investigation into the provision of education, both technical and general?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am aware of the lack of adequate facilities for higher education in the West Indies. Educational matters will certainly fall within the scope of the inquiry of the Royal Commission.

JAMAICA.

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to avert possible disturbances in Jamaica on 1st August in view of the fact that there is a widespread belief in that island that on 1st August lands are to be distributed among the tenantry and other persons wanting land?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am glad to have the opportunity of removing misunderstanding on this subject. Rumours that on 1st August lands are to be distributed freely amongst the tenantry and others have been current in the island, but they are entirely without foundation. A notice in this sense has been issued by the Government of Jamaica.

Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman not undertake to examine this brilliant suggestion, and add it to the hundreds of things which he is now considering?

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of small

holdings in Jamaica under 30 acres; the number exceeding 30 acres; and the approximate total acreage in each category?

Mr. MacDonald: I regret that I have not the information asked for, but I will request the Acting Governor to supply it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the qualifications for residents in Jamaica, Trinidad and Barbados, respectively, for eligibility to serve as members of the Legislative Councils?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer is long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the neighbouring French islands in the West Indies there are no property qualifications for election to the Legislative Councils?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Following is the reply:

Qualifications of Elected Members of Legislative Councils in Jamaica, Trinidad and Barbados.

Jamaica.

No person can become an Elected Member who

(a) Holds any office of emolument under the Crown or under the Government of Jamaica; or
(b) Is not entitled to vote at the election of a Member of the Council for some electoral district; or
(c) Does not possess one of the following qualifications:

(i) A clear annual income of £,150 from land belonging to him in his own right or in right of his wife.
(ii) A clear annual income of, 200 arising partly from land, as aforesaid, and partly from any freehold office or any business.
(iii) A clear annual income of, £300 arising from any freehold office or any business.
(iv) The payment annually of direct taxes or export duty or both of not less than£10.

(d) Has not resided for 12 months immediately preceding the election in the district for which he is a candidate, or does not possess a clear annual income of £150 from land in that district belonging to him in his own right or in right of his wife.

Trinidad.

An Elected Member must be:

(a) of the male sex;
(b) registered as a voter;
(c) able to read and write English;
(d) in possession, in his own right, of real estate of the value of at least £2,500 above all charges and encumbrances, or from which he derives a clear annual income of not less than £200; or, a clear annual income of over £400 arising from any source.

No person is entitled to be elected for any electoral district:
unless he is resident therein and has been so resident for 12 months before the election, or possesses in that district real estate of the value of at least £5,000 or from which he derives a clear annual income of not less than £400.

Holders of an office of emolument under the Crown or under the Government of the Colony and ministers of religion are ineligible.

Barbados.

Every male subject of His Majesty, not less than 21 years of age, not being a minister of religion, or whose functions are of a judicial nature, is qualified for election if he possesses any one of the following qualifications:

(1) Thirty acres of land in fee simple or fee tail, with a dwelling-house thereon of not less value than £300;
(2) Ownership in fee simple or fee tail of lands, houses or real estate of the absolute value of £1500;
(3) Tenant for life, or who, or whose wife, is beneficially interested for life, in any property of an annual value of not less than £120, whether occupied or leased out;
(4) Receipt by the candidate or his wife of a clear annual income of not less than £200.

COLONIES (FOREIGN REFUGEES).

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent foreign political refugees are being allowed to settle in the Colonial Empire?

Mr. M. MacDonald: There are no restrictions upon the entry of refugees into the Colonial dependencies provided that they are in a position to comply with the immigration regulations which apply to all intending immigrants whether British subjects or aliens. I have no information as to the number of refugees who have, in fact, settled in the Colonies; but the possibility of the settlement of a number of Jewish refugees in certain areas in East Africa is now under examination.

ANGLO-ITALIAN AGREEMENT.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that, if the date when the Anglo-Italian Agreement is to be brought into force has not been determined before this House rises for the Summer Recess, it will not be brought into force until after the House reassembles and has discussed the matter?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to consult the House prior to informing the Italian Government that it considers the requirements have been fulfilled which enable the instruments in the annex of the Anglo-Italian Treaty to be brought into force?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give such an assurance in the hypothetical circumstances contemplated by the hon. and gallant Member. As I informed him on Monday last, there will be an opportunity for further discussion by the House when the date of entry into force of the instruments in question has been determined. I can give no assurance that any earlier Debate will be arranged.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not very desirable that the House should discuss this agreement before it is brought into force, in view of the fact that it is an agreement based upon a phrase about a settlement in Spain which has never been defined and which the Prime Minister has consistently refused to elucidate?

The Prime Minister: I do not disagree with that view at all, but I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that it would be rather difficult for me to give an unqualified assurance at this moment in circumstances which I cannot foresee. It might be that it would be necessary to call the House together again to consider the matter.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is it not plain that it would be useless for the House to discuss this agreement after the date had been determined, and that if the House is to discuss the matter with any possibility of expressing its view, it should be before the determination of the date?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that is so at all. If the House takes a


different view from that of the Government, of course it can make its view known.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it to be understood from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that he does not exclude from his consideration the possibility of calling the House together to discuss this agreement before the date is settled?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not exclude it.

REARMAMENT FACTORIES, DAGENHAM.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether full use is being made of Briggs' and Ford's factories at Dagenham in forwarding the rearmament programme?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is informed that appreciable use is being made, either by way of sub-contracting or by direct orders under the rearmament programme, of the Briggs' and Ford's factories at Dagenham by all three Service Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

SOUTH ATLANTIC SERVICE.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any progress has been made to establish by British Airways, Limited, the South Atlantic air-mail service?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. A survey party organised by British Airways left England for South America on 11th June and is now, with the consent of the Governments concerned, examining all the operational factors affecting a mail and mail passenger air service on the South American section of the route between Natal and Buenos Aires. The survey is expected to take three months. In the meanwhile arrangements are being pressed forward for the establishment this year of the London—Lisbon service, and for its early extension to West Africa, where a detailed survey is now in progress. The necessary permissions for the passage of this service over foreign territory are being sought.

Mrs. Tate: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that when the present service was decided on those called on for tenders were told that the service must be flown in May, 1937? Might we therefore consider it a trifle overdue?

Captain Balfour: At the time when tenders were asked for, with a view to starting the service at some time considerably earlier than is considered likely to be the actual case, other matters of national importance were in a different state from that in which they are in to-day.

SOUTHAMPTON—SYDNEY SERVICE.

Sir M. Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the arrangements made at Port Darwin for the recent inauguration of the first passenger and airmail service between Southampton and Sydney by the Imperial Airways, Limited, flying-boat "Challenger," were in every respect satisfactory and as efficient as airmen might reasonably expect after making a long and trying flight?

Captain Balfour: I am informed that the difficulties experienced at Port Darwin were due, in the main, to the fact that exceptional weather conditions coincided with the first passenger carrying flight, which was of an experimental nature to test the ground facilities available before the start of the full service at the end of this month. I understand that everything possible is being done to rectify any weaknesses brought to light at Port Darwin and that a great improvement had already taken place in the arrangements for the reception of the second flying-boat.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that when the Dutch liner arrived a day later, everything was perfectly satisfactory, and why should not that have been the case for us?

Captain Balfour: That was owing to exceptional weather conditions and to the fact that the Dutch liner was landing on a land airport, which is considerably easier in certain weather conditions than on a marine airport; but I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that when the second flying-boat arrived there the nine passengers were taken off within nine minutes of mooring, that instead of the Customs inspection taking place in the aircraft, all the luggage was taken direct to a hotel, and that this course will be followed until


the building of the new Customs station is completed. The proceedings were timed by officials, who were entirely satisfied with the second effort.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS (STAFF BALLOTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the results of the ballot taken by the Imperial Airways, Limited, with regard to the method of representation to be made use of by their staff can now be announced?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. I understand that the ballots taken on this question have indicated a preference on the part both of the captains and of the first officers of Imperial Airways for representation by the British Air Line Pilots Association.

Mr. Mander: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the figures of the ballot?

Captain Balfour: In regard to the captains class, the total number entitled to vote was 66; the votes for the domestic committee were 21; the votes for the British Air Line Pilots Association were 38; blank ballot papers were three; and ballot papers not returned were four. As regards the larger number, in the first officers category, the total number entitled to vote was 108; votes for the domestic committee were four; votes for the British Air Line Pilots Association were 91; blank ballot papers were three; and ballot papers not returned were 10.

Mr. Montague: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that that result justifies the campaign inaugurated in this House?

Captain Balfour: The campaign was not inaugurated in this House. A ballot on any question on which there is discussion is always good, whether it be a national ballot or on any other issue.

Mr. Dalton: Does it not justify the removal of certain persons from Imperial Airways who were obstructing this ballot?

EUROPEAN SERVICES.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made towards the formation of a joint operating company for European air services as recommended by the Cadman Report?

Captain Balfour: Negotiations between the two companies concerned are in progress, and steps will be taken to see that there is no avoidable delay.

Mr. Robinson: In view of the fact that it is now five months since the Cadman Committee reported, will my hon. and gallant Friend give the companies a date before which negotiations must be completed for the formation of this joint operating company?

Captain Balfour: I do not think it is practicable to give the date by which two companies must complete certain commercial negotiations for which they themselves must be primarily responsible, but I can assure him that we are doing everything we can to urge on this matter and to give the companies every assistance that it is the power of the Department to give.

Mr. Mander: Is it the case that a new general manager has recently been appointed for this work?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

NEW FACTORY, CREWE.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether reasonable preference will be given to men resident in South Cheshire and North Staffordshire during the erection of the new factory at Crewe; and when production commences?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am informed that preference is being given to local men by the contractors at this factory and that the same policy, as far as possible, will be followed when production commences.

Mr. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make a statement about the aero-engine works that are to be erected at Crewe; who is to finance the concern; who will own the factory; and at what date it is intended that production shall commence?

Sir K. Wood: The factory at Crewe is being erected to supplement the existing capacity for the manufacture of Rolls-Royce types of aero-engine. The State will finance the capital charges involved in the erection and equipment of the factory, will own it and will lease it to Messrs. Rolls-Royce for the production of the engines required. It is not at present possible to state definitely when produc-


tion will commence, but it is hoped that the factory will be substantially complete in about six months time.

LAND ACQUISITION.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Air what was the price awarded at arbitration for the acquisition for the purpose of Royal Air Force stores of portions of the three farms, Moors Farm, Ryelands Farm, and Bradford Farm, in the parishes of Hartlebury, Elmley Lovett, and Stone, respectively, in Worcestershire, and also of agricultural land on the main road leading from Kidderminster to Droitwich at Rushock; and whether he will state the area of each portion of land purchased, as well as the purchase price paid for it and the value at which the land had been assessed for local taxation?

Sir K. Wood: The price awarded for the land at the farms referred to, which comprised approximately 96, 20 and 25 acres respectively, was £15,900. It is not possible to divide this award as between the three farms as they are in the same ownership. For approximately 18 acres of land at Rushock £1,900 was awarded. The land acquired was agricultural and consequently derated.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hartlebury is in the Evesham Division of Worcestershire, and that is my division, and will he be so good as to have a word with me afterwards?

AERODROMES.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his review of civil aerodromes has now been completed; and in which cases it is proposed to use civil aerodromes for Royal Air Force purposes?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir, the review is continuing. As a result of the survey carried out so far, use is being or will shortly be made of 33 civil aerodromes for Royal Air Force or Auxiliary Air Force purposes.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made towards acquiring land on the English side of the Solway Firth for use as an aerodrome at Silloth and Kirkbride; what area of land is involved; and, if it has been acquired, what price has been paid or agreed to be paid?

Sir K. Wood: Following notices to treat, possession by agreement was obtained on 1st April of approximately 460 acres of land at Silloth and 370 acres at Kirkbride. Negotiations in regard to the price to be paid are proceeding.

Mr. Kelly: May we have the information when these negotiations are likely to be closed?

Sir K. Wood: I will inquire and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

PETROL.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air the total number of gallons of petrol and the cost of same used by the Royal Air Force on home and foreign service, separately, for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; from whom was this petrol purchased; and what was the price per gallon?

Sir K. Wood: It would be contrary to practice and would not be in the public interest to give the information requested.

Mr. Day: Will it be in the public interest to say from whom the petrol was purchased?

FIGHTER SQUADRON, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Air when the contemplated fighter squadron for Scotland will be completed?

Sir K. Wood: As I informed the hon. Member on 6th July last it is proposed to convert one of the squadrons at present located in Scotland to fighter duties during the course of the present year. It is anticipated that the squadron will start training for its new duties in the autumn, and it is hoped that the conversion will be completed by the end of the present year.

Mr. Davidson: Does this conversion mean that this squadron will be equipped with the latest model type of fighter?

Sir K. Wood: I hope so.

Mr. Mathers: Will the employés at the Ministry who were dismissed when the previous changes took place be re-employed when this squadron is established?

BALLOON BARRAGE.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Air the total expenditure, up to date, on the construction of the London air-balloon barrage system?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give any precise figures such as the hon. Member asks for, but he will find such information as can be made available on this subject on pages 88 and 89 of Air Estimates for 1938.

Mr. Davidson: While recognising the Minister's reply to be in order so far as he is concerned, may I ask him whether he can assure the House that the expenditure up to date is not entirely outwith the expenditure that he anticipated on this system?

Sir K. Wood: I shall have to think over that question.

CANADIAN AIRCRAFT (SUPPLIES).

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is now in a position to make any further statement as to the possibility of obtaining aircraft supplies in Canada?

Sir K. Wood: With the concurrence of His Majesty's Government in Canada, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have decided to send immediately a special mission to Canada for the purpose of entering into negotiation with the Canadian aircraft industry for the manufacture of large bomber aircraft in Canada. The Mission will be headed by Sir Hardman Lever. He will be accompanied by Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Edward Ellington, Mr. F. Handley Page, President of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, and Mr. A. H. Self, second Deputy-Under-Secretary or State at the Air Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PROVISIONAL DRIVING LICENCES.

Mr. Conant: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will impose a time limit upon the holders of provisional driving licences, since the whole purpose of the driving test is defeated if those unable to pass the test are permitted indefinitely to take out provisional licences?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I am afraid I cannot adopt this suggestion, which would involve legislation; I do not agree that the existing provisions are nugatory.

Mr. Conant: Has not my right hon. Friend some suggestion by which those

who are not able either now or in the future to pass the driving test can be kept off the roads in the interests of safety?

Mr. Burgin: If any one obtains a provisional licence he has to drive with someone who has passed the test or with someone who has been driving for two years, and he must wear an "L" certificate on his vehicle. I think that that is a sufficient deterrent.

Mr. Conant: Would my right hon. Friend ask the police to enforce that rule to a greater extent than they do?

Mr. Burgin: The enforcement of the law does not come under my Department. It is a matter for the Home Office.

Mr. Garro Jones: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed the number of oars bearing the "L" sign which stand outside public houses at the week-end?

TRUNK ROADS (FENCING).

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can take any steps to secure the fencing of trunk roads through open commons or fells, in view of the frequent losses of sheep killed or maimed by motor cars on such roads?

Mr. Burgin: It is for the owners of lands adjoining highways to make such provision as they may think necessary to secure the safety of stock. I cannot undertake the erection of fencing on trunk roads in order to relieve the owners of that responsibility.

Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the hardship to owners of sheep, and that it is a danger to drivers in places where sheep can stray upon trunk roads?

Mr. Burgin: I do not think there is any serious difficulty. Most owners fence their own property if they have any stock of value upon it.

Mr. Macquisten: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that right through the Highlands there are long stretches of roads which used to be rough tracks and where he has now put down speedways, and sheep are being killed by the score? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman fence the speedways which he has made?

ROAD TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS (RAILWAY COMPANIES).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered what is practically the effective financial control of the leading road transport companies by the railway companies and the growing concern regarding the prejudicial effect of that control on industrial interests and public transport service; and whether he proposes to take any action towards the reorganisation of the carrying industries under national control?

Mr. Burgin: I do not propose to take action on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I have no reason to suppose that the provision of passenger or goods road transport facilities has been prejudiced because railway companies have financial interests in road transport undertakings.

Mr. Kennedy: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations from industrial interests?

Mr. Burgin: Not to my personal knowledge, but I will make inquiries.

EAST LANCASHIRE ROAD.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been directed to the criticism of the traffic islands in the Manchester—Liverpool road by the chairman of the Lancashire highways committee; whether he is aware of the growing public preference for traffic-light signals; and whether he will take steps to facilitate the installation of these signals whenever they are requested or recommended by the local authorities?

Mr. Burgin: I am, of course, prepared at any time to consider representations from local authorities on the matter. The Liverpool—East Lancashire Road, which became a trunk road on 1st April, 1937, was constructed by the Lancashire County Council, and roundabouts were established at the road junctions as the most satisfactory means for the regulation of traffic. While I am aware that they have tended to reduce the speed of traffic, I have no grounds for concluding that they have failed in their prime purpose, or that traffic light signals would be preferable.

Mr. Kelly: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the pleas made by local authorities who desire to have these lights? It may be that they are right and the county council wrong.

Mr. Burgin: I will certainly consider that matter very carefully. The policy which underlies the giving or refusing of traffic light signals depends a good deal on the weight of traffic. That is the recognised policy in the Department, but if the hon. Gentleman has some particular local representations in mind I shall be glad to give them personal consideration.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LONDON.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the serious congestion of traffic in some of the London streets during certain hours of the day, he will consider making regulations excluding horse-drawn vehicles using the narrow streets during busy hours?

Mr. Burgin: I am not satisfied that at the present time it is desirable in the general public interest to extend these restrictions as suggested by the hon. Member. Regulations are already in force restricting the use of certain important streets by horse-drawn and other slow-moving vehicles.

Mr. Day: Has the Minister received reports from other leading cities where this experiment has been tried?

Mr. Burgin: No, I have not.

Mr. E. Smith: In view of the fact that many poor people obtain their livelihood from the services of horses and other animals, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to entertain a suggestion of this character?

PROPOSED SEVERN BRIDGE.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the construction of a bridge over the Severn river?

Mr. Burgin: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Jenkins: As this matter has been under the consideration of the Government for a very long time, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when people who are so much interested in this bridge, particularly in South Wales and the West of England, can expect a decision?

Mr. Quibell: Has the right hon. Gentleman also under consideration the Humber Bridge?

Mr. Burgin: I am afraid I am not in a position to give a date on which I can make a statement on this matter. I appreciate the interest of the House in the proposal. It is one of three major bridge proposals which are being considered together. All I can say is that I will make the statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when we can expect this statement, or will he be prepared to receive another deputation from the local authorities interested?

Mr. Burgin: I do not wish to trouble the local authorities to send a further deputation if the matter is awaiting a decision. I will devote further attention to the matter in view of the hon. Gentleman's observations and see whether it is possible to expedite making a statement.

Mr. Morgan Jones: Can we have a statement before the House rises for the Recess?

Mr. Burgin: I will endeavour to make some statement between now and then.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Will the statement embrace all three propositions, including the Forth Bridge?

NEWBY BRIDGE, WINDERMERE.

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will reconsider his decision to make a grant of public funds for the road widening scheme at Newby Bridge, Windermere, in view of the fact that the people in the district do not want it; that the existing road is remarkably free from accidents; and that the amenities of a beauty spot will be spoiled, as the Lancashire County Council has now declined to modify its tree-cutting scheme?

Mr. Burgin: I am unable to withdraw my promise to make a grant from the Road Fund towards the cost of this scheme. The Lancashire County Council, as the responsible highway authority, decided that the correction of the alignment and the widening of this section of road were necessary in the interests of traffic and public safety. I understand that during the last two years there have been 37 accidents at this point.

Mr. Leach: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that those accidents were

very trivial indeed, and that this scheme will not be an improvement in the least degree, but will merely facilitate increased speeds by motor cars and an increase of accidents?

Mr. Burgin: Well, I am acting on the recommendations of the local county council.

STEAMER SERVICES, SCOTLAND AND IRELAND.

Mr. McGovern: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the cargo boats owned by Messrs. Burns and Laird, Limited, and sailing between Glasgow and Derry, are seriously overcrowded; whether any inspection of these boats takes place, especially during July and August; whether there is a sufficient number of lifeboats in case of a disaster to the ship; and whether he is aware that these boats are quite unsuitable for passenger traffic?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I assume that the question refers to boats which carry passengers as well as cargo and which are granted passenger certificates after survey each year. I have no evidence that they carry more than their authorised complements of passengers. The lifesaving appliances on board are in accordance with the regulations.

Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. Member aware that during the months of July and August these vessels are very seriously overcrowded, that they are completely unsuitable for passenger traffic, and that the conditions in them are actually a scandal, as everyone knows; and will we have an inspection made during July or August?

Mr. Cross: The Glasgow police check the numbers of passengers from time to time. As to the other part of the hon. Member's question, I will reply to that in the next question.

Mr. Garro Jones: Are any tests ever made to ascertain how many of these lifeboats will float? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great many of them are filled up with junk and spring a leak owing to their dryness immediately after they are launched, and will he not bring these matters within the powers of inspection of the officials of the Board?

Mr. Cross: They are inspected every year, and I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement.

Mr. R. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these boats call at Greenock and that there have been very serious complaints about the inadequate accommodation for passengers available on the boats?

Mr. McGovern: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the serious overcrowding that takes place in boats plying between Ardrossan and the Isle of Man, also between Ardrossan and Ireland and Glasgow and Ireland, especially during July and August; that in the event of a disaster the available lifeboats could not provide for 10 per cent. of the passengers; and will he order an inspection on 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th July, on both day and night services, with a view to preparing a report and, if necessary, a prosecution of the owners?

Mr. Cross: I have no evidence that any of these steamers carries more than its authorised complement of passengers. The lifesaving appliances on board are in accordance with the statutory requirements. The local police check the number of passengers from time to time and their attention has been drawn to the suggestion in the last part of the hon. Member's question.

Mr. McGovern: Will not the hon. Gentleman have an inspection made during this period, when passenger traffic is very high; and is it not much better to see that the law is carried out than to have a disaster and then have an inquiry into it?

Mr. Cross: We are completely satisfied as to the number of passengers carried. Both our principal officers in the Glasgow district and the chief of the marine division of the Glasgow police are satisfied that these vessels do not carry numbers in excess of their passenger certificate, and in addition to that, as I have already informed the hon. Member, we are asking the police to make some further inspection.

MAGISTRATES' ASSOCIATION.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Attorney-General whether the Government are prepared to consider setting up a magistrates'

association which would meet to hear lectures and discuss matters connected with the duties of magistrates; and, further, whether he will consider introducing legislation to compel all magistrates who are in future appointed to the bench on appointment to be compulsorily required to study their duties and to become members of this association?

Captain Waterhouse (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The answer is, No, Sir. The Magistrates' Association, which was formed in 1920 and of which my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is President, already affords ample facilities for dealing with the matters suggested in the question. The increasing membership of this association indicates that magistrates are themselves aware of the benefits to be derived from membership of such a body without the need for introducing compulsory powers.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that there are many magistrates who have an inadequate idea of the very important duties which they are called upon to perform?

Captain Waterhouse: I am not aware of that.

Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that one of the chief qualifications for a magistrate is common sense and good judgment in every case?

SOLICITORS ACCOUNTS RULES.

Commander Marsden: asked the Attorney-General whether in view of the fact that the Solicitors Accounts Rules under the 1935 Act have failed to prevent defalcations, as shown by convictions of solicitors in the criminal courts, he will obtain a draft of the Law Society's proposed amended rules for publication in the Board of Trade Journal, so that they may be considered by Members of this House and by the public before adoption by the society?

Captain Waterhouse: My right hon. and learned Friend is shortly receiving a deputation from the Law Society with regard to their proposals. He will discuss the question of publication, but he does not think the Board of Trade Journal would be the appropriate medium.

VACCINATION.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Health whether the figures in his Department confirm the estimate that in England and Wales, during the 33 years ending December, 1937, 107 children under five years of age died of small-pox while 285 died of vaccination; and whether he can say in what circumstances the 285 vaccination deaths were caused?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): During the 33 years, 1905–37 inclusive, 118 deaths of children under five in England and Wales were assigned to smallpox. During the same period the deaths of 291 children of the same age group were assigned to vaccinia or causes associated with vaccination. With regard to the last part of the question, all such deaths which come to the knowledge of my Department are investigated and a record kept of the circumstances.

Mrs. Tate: In view of those figures, is it not high time that compulsory vaccination was done away with?

BOMBING OF BRITISH SHIPS.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a full statement on the reply of the Spanish Insurgents regarding the bombing of British ships, indicating the results of the consultations which have taken place with Sir Robert Hodgson, the nature of any decisions the Government may have reached, and the reply to be made to the denial that British ships have been deliberately attacked?

The Prime Minister: As I informed the right hon. Gentleman on 7th July, His Majesty's Government found it necessary to ask the Burgos authorities to explain the exact meaning which they attached to their disclaimer of any intention to make deliberate attacks on British ships. The reply which has now been received states that attacks on British ships in Spanish ports are not deliberate. In support of this statement the Burgos authorities claim that the bombardment of these ports is designed to prevent traffic in arms, munitions, explosives and war material of all kinds on the quayside or in factories and in lighters or vessels anchored in the port without discrimination as to their respective national flag, which it

is impossible for aircraft to distinguish. The reply goes on to say that ships which are not engaged in contraband trade and which enter such dangerous zones voluntarily expose themselves to the consequences of their own temerity, and adds that the attacks in which they are involved are not directed against them but against the objectives represented by the enemy ports in which they lie.
This country has passed legislation prohibiting British ships from carrying arms into any port in Spain, and in any case His Majesty's Government have made it plain that they cannot accept as legitimate the bombing and sinking by aircraft of merchant ships. At the same time, ships trading with ports in the war zone must accept the risks which inevitably result from the existence of a state of war, and effective protection cannot be guaranteed to them unless this country is prepared to take an active part in the hostilities. I have said before, and I say now, that His Majesty's Government would not in our view be justified in recommending such a course, which might well result in the spread of the conflict far beyond its present limits. While any military action in such circumstances is thus precluded, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to acquiesce in the repetition of attacks of a certain character. Hitherto we have always made protests to the Burgos authorities where a vessel lying by itself has, as such, been the subject of a deliberate attack, usually by low-flying aircraft. An attack on an isolated vessel must of its nature be deliberate, particularly in those instances where the vessel has been reconnoitred previous to being bombed, and has been machine-gunned afterwards.
His Majesty's Government are still in communication with the Burgos authorities on this and other matters arising from the reply received from them, and I would prefer to await the result of these communications before making any further statement.
There remains the proposal put forward by the Burgos authorities of a safe port at Almeria. While appreciating that this suggestion was put forward with a view to finding some solution of the present problem, His Majesty's Government have found that the difficulties and disadvantages of the proposal are very great, and they have ascertained that the Spanish Government regard the proposal


as unacceptable. It seems doubtful, therefore, whether it can be proceeded with.
I may add that Sir Robert Hodgson is for the present remaining in London.

Mr. Attlee: Are His Majesty's Government going to make it plain to the insurgent authorities that they cannot accept their explanation, which seems to be an entire contradiction of the facts of these bombings which the Prime Minister has himself given to the House?

The Prime Minister: We have said that it is not possible to reconcile the disclaimer of deliberate intention with the facts as known to us in certain particular cases. I think I would rather not make any further statement until the communications have proceeded a little bit further than they have now.

Mr. Bellenger: As the Prime Minister has said that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to acquiesce in certain deliberate attacks on these merchant ships, may I ask how he proposes to prevent those attacks?

The Prime Minister: That is a subject of the communications.

Mr. Garro Jones: Has any communication been received from the Burgos authorities that some of those attacks on British ships were carried out without their orders and outside their control?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Miss Rathbone: As the right hon. Gentleman said some time ago that unless we could get guarantees against these attacks our friendly relations with the Burgos authorities could not continue, may I ask how he is going to carry out that warning, in view of the failure of the Burgos authorities to give any satisfactory explanation or guarantees?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Have not both sides in the Spanish conflict just as much right to drop bombs in Spanish territorial waters as on Spanish soil itself?

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the reference to British ships sailing into Spanish ports having to suffer for their own temerity sheer impertinence on the part of Franco?

NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1936.

Resolved, That this House will, upon Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army, and Air Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1937, and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year.—[Captain Margesson.]

Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, Army, and Air Departments, which were presented upon the 1st February, 1938, be referred to the Committee.—[Captain Margesson.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister for what purpose the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule is put upon the Paper to-day?

The Prime Minister: After the Debate on Agriculture, we desire to obtain the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, the Third Reading of the Milk Bill and proceedings on the Food and Drugs Bill, which will arise on the Motion standing on the Paper in the name of the Minister of Health.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will those further subjects take a long time to-night?

The Prime Minister: I hope not.

Motion made, and Question put,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 128.

Division No. 301.]
AYES.
[3.54p.m.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Atholl, Duchess of
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)
Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Bernays, R. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Bird, Sir R. B.


Apsley, Lord
Balfour, Capt H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Blair, Sir R.


Asshaton, R.
Barrie,Sir C. C.
Boothby, R. J. G.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Baxter, A. Beverley
Boulton, W. W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Braithwaite, Major A. N




Brass, Sir W.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Brisooe, Capt. R. G.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Pilkington, R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Granville, E. L.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Procter, Major H. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Gratton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Bull, B. B.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Burghley, Lord
Hambro, A. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hannah, I. C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Harvey, Sir G.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Butler, R. A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Heilgars, Captain F. F. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rowlands, G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hepworth, J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Channon, H.
Higgs, W. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Holdsworth, H.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Chorlton,>A. E. L.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Christie, J. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Salmon, Sir I.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Scott, Lord William


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Selley, H. R.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hulbert, N. J.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Hunloke, H. P.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hunter, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J, A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Sinolair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Keeling, E. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Latham, Sir P.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cross, R. H.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Culverwell, C. T.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovit)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Sir M. F.


De Chair, S. S.
Levy, T.
Tate, Mavis C.


De la Bère, R.
Liddall, W. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lloyd, G. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Denville, Alfred
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Loftus. P. C.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Donner, P. W.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Titohfield, Marquess of


Dower, Major A. V. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Turton, R. H.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wakefield, W. W.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
McKie, J. H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Eckersley, P. T.
Maitland, A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Margessen, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Ellis, Sir G.
Markham, S. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Emery, J. F.
Marsden, Commander A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Errington, E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Williams, H. G. (Creydon, S.)


Everard, W. L.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fildes, Sir H.
Morrison, G. A. (Soottlsh Univ's.)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
withers, Sir J. J.


Fleming, E. L.
Munro, P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fox. Sir G. W. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Furness, S. N.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Peake, O.



Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Petherick, M.
Captain Dugdale and Major Herbert.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Buchanan, G.
Day, H.


Ammon, C. G.
Burke, W. A.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cape. T.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Barr, J.
Cluse, W. S.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Batey, J.
Cocks, F. S.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Bellenger, F. J.
Collindridge, F.
Foot, D. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Daggar, G.
Gallacher, W.


Benson, G.
Dalton, H.
Gardner, B. W.


Broad, F. A.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Garro Jones, G. M.


Bromfield, W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)







George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembreke)
Lawson, J. J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Holens)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leach, W.
Rothsohild, J. A. do


Gibbins, J
Leonard, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Leslie, J. R.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Logan, D. G.
Sexten. T. M.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lunn, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Grenfell, D. R.
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'.ddl'sbro, W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Griffith, G. A. (Hermsworth)
McGovern, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Maclean, N.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Groves, T. E.
Mander, G. le M.
Soransen, R. W.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Marshall, F.
Stephen, C.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maxton, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Hall, J. H. (Whiteehapel)
Messer, F.
Stokes, R. R.


Hardie, Agnes
Montague, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Hayday, A.
Muff, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Thorne, W.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Owen, Major G.
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Paling, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Hicks, E. G.
Parker, J.
Tomlinson, G.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parkinson, J. A.
Viant, S. P.


Hopkin, D.
Pearson, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Jagger, J.
Pethlok-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Walker, J.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Poole, C. C.
Watkins, F. C.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pritt, D. N.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


John, W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Westwood, J.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
White, H. Graham


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ridley, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Kelly, W. T.
Riley, B.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.



Lathan, G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (No. 3).

Sir Robert Gower: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it unlawful to have possession of any animal trained or prepared for use in fighting or baiting or of any instrument or appliance designed or adapted for use in connection with the fighting or baiting of any animal.
In doing so I shall be brief, but it is necessary for me to give an explanation to the House. The Bill is promoted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in order to tighten up the law against cock-fighting and to remove from existing legislation a defect which in practice has been found to be of real substance. Cock-fighting is cruel; it is very cruel. It involves intense pain and suffering to the unfortunate birds employed in it, and I suggest that it is degrading to those who witness it. Notwithstanding the fact that they are unlawful I regret to say that cock-fighting mains are not infrequently held in this country, but unfortunately they take place under conditions of such great secrecy that it is impossible in most cases to obtain any evidence upon which a prosecution can be based.
A few days ago I introduced a Bill dealing with the subject-matter of the present one. That Bill obtained a Second Reading and was referred to a Committee of the Whole House. It was subsequently represented to me by the Department of

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs that that Bill went too far, and that if it passed into law it might place innocent persons in jeopardy of conviction. I therefore withdrew it. The present Bill embodies Amendments framed by my right hon. Friend's Department with a view to making the Measure a practical and workable one. It provides that:
If any person has in his possession (a) any animal trained or prepared for use in fighting or baiting; or (b) any instrument or appliance designed or adapted for use in connection with the fighting or baiting of any animal; he shall
I desire specially to call the attention of the House to the following words:
unless he satisfies the Court that it was not in his possession for the purpose of being used or permitted to be used as aforesaid, be guilty of an offence under this Section,
and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to the penalties provided for in the Bill, they being the same as are provided for offences under the Protection of Animals Acts. There is, of course, a right of appeal. I wish to make it plain that if the Bill passes into law, once it has been established before a court that a person has in his possession any animal—which includes birds—trained or prepared for use in fighting or baiting, or any instrument or appliance designed or adapted for fighting or baiting, the onus of proof of unlawful purpose is removed


from the prosecution and the onus is thrown upon the defendant to prove the contrary. I suggest that the circumstances in these cases are such as to make this provision reasonable. It is unnecessary for me to say that no prosecution would be brought against any individual unless there were very strong grounds for believing that the bird or the animal or the implement was in his possession for an unlawful purpose. Moreover, the Bill contains a provision framed for the purpose of protecting what, for want of a better expression, I term the legitimate poultry breeder. It is as follows:
For the purpose of this Section a bird shall not be deemed to be trained or prepared for use in fighting or baiting by reason only that its comb or wattle has been removed.
I understand that this provision has been inserted at the suggestion of the Department over which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture presides. I do not think it is necessary for me to detain the House longer. I ask the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill and to facilitate its passing into law at an early stage, so that our hands may be strengthened in putting an end to an extremely cruel and degenerate so-called sport, which I am sure offends the conscience of every decent-minded individual.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I rise to oppose the Motion with no lack of appreciation of the great work done by my hon. Friend and by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The House should be careful before it gives leave to introduce a Bill to replace one which was introduced only a week or so ago, which when examined was found to be liable to bring about the conviction of innocent parties. There has been very little cockfighting in England in recent years. The last prosecution of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of men attending cock-fighting a few months ago was, in the opinion of the ordinary man in the street, a disgraceful and discreditable piece of work. There was an agent provocateur.

Sir R. Gower: That prosecution was not brought by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Sir A. Wilson: I beg the hon. Member's pardon and regret that I should have made the statement. The ground for the

last prosecution was prepared at great expense by an agent provocateur who, having spent I think two years in getting into the confidence of cock-fighters, having himself kept, bought and sold cocks for fighting, was in a position to obtain sufficient inside knowledge to secure a conviction. I cannot believe that this is a Bill which ought to be allowed to pass or even to be presented, for the details of it, complicated as they are, suggest that there is at least equal liability of bringing innocent parties within its scope, and, moreover, it is vexatious. There are large numbers of game cocks kept for other purposes which could be used and which require little or no training to fight. This Bill contains possibilities of vexatious prosecutions, and the status and repute of those persons who undertook the last prosecution is not such, in my submission, as to justify this House making ordinary decent men liable to vexatious prosecutions for an offence which is now rare in any part of England. We have, Heaven knows, enough legislation to pass without being asked to waste our time upon a trifling matter of this sort, and without the smallest evidence being given that there is any appreciable amount of cock-fighting, or any need for the Bill. I trust that the House will refuse leave to bring in the Bill.
Question,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it unlawful to have possession of any animal trained or prepared for use in fighting or baiting or of any instrument or appliance designed or adopted for use in connection with the fighting or baiting of any animal,
put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Robert Gower, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Sir George Jones, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Mathers, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Sir Henry Haydn Jones, Mr. Lewis Jones, Mr. Groves, Sir Robert Bird, and Major Procter.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (No. 3) BILL,
to make it unlawful to have possession of any animal trained or prepared for use in fighting or baiting or of any instrument or appliance designed or adapted for use in connection with the fighting or baiting of any animal," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed.[Bill 216]

BILLS REPORTED.

WARRINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS AND TROLLEY VEHICLES BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Mental Deficiency Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Clacton-on-Sea) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Cholderton and District Water) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Torquay) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Calne Water) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to the limitation of actions and arbitrations." [Limitation Bill [Lords].

LIMITATION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 217.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLE- MENTARY ESTIMATES, 1938).

Estimate presented,—of a further sum required to be voted for the service of

the year ending 31st March, 1939 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 160.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1938.

CLASS VI.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,043,778, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and improvement of breeding, etc., of livestock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing, fishery research and development, control of diseases of fish, etc., and sundry other services."— [Note.—1,400,000 has been voted on account.]

4.13 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: On a point of Order. There are several Votes on the Order Paper all relating to agriculture, and there is also on the Paper a Motion to reduce this Vote, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely). I suggest that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if you allow a discussion on as wide a range of subjects as possible, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed moves his reduction of the Vote at the end of the discussion. If he moved it earlier the discussion would be limited in its scope.

The Deputy-Chairman: There are on the Paper six Votes, all dealing with different aspects of the problem of agriculture. I think it would obviously be for the convenience of the Committee if we are enabled to take a discussion covering all the subjects raised by those six Votes, and if the Committee are agreeable to that course I shall raise no objection; but, of course, it will be necessary to postpone moving the reduction of the Vote until the end of the Debate.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am sure, Captain Bourne, that your Ruling will be welcomed by the Committee, because it is desirable in a case of this sort that we should have as wide a discussion as we can. I am grateful to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite for having put down this Vote to-day, because I take it as an indication of that new interest in the subject which is so refreshing to a Minister of Agriculture. When a Vote of this sort is put down, it is customary for the Minister, in view of the fact that he is asking for money, to give an account of the operations of his Department over the past year, and to justify, if he can, his further call on the public purse. But when I look at the extent of the operations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the wide ramifications of the various matters with which it deals, I find myself faced, not with a lack of topics on which to discuss administration, but with an embarrassment of riches. I think, therefore, that probably the best service I can render to the Committee will be to give as accurate a picture as I can of the state of agriculture at the present time and of its recent history, so that we may at least have a common basis of facts on which to found the discussion that will subsequently take place. I have a tremendous amount of information here about all sorts of things, and if any hon. Members desire information on any particular points or have any observations to make, I hope I may be permitted at a later stage, as we are in Committee, to reply to them. I am anxious to put the Committee in possession of as full information as I can.
At the commencement of my review of our present position I think it is only right to impress upon the Committee something of the size and importance of our present agricultural industry. When I tell the Committee that its gross annual value is of the order of £250,000,000 a year—a figure which exceeds the annual value of the agriculture of any of our Dominions—they will see that it is really an enormous industry of great national importance. It is a remarkable fact that the wide territory of Canada, stretching, as it does, from the Arctic Circle to the confines of the United States, and placing agriculture absolutely in the forefront of its economy, still has an annual output which is below the value year by year of


the agricultural produce produced in this little island of ours. There is another feature of agriculture to which I ought to refer, and that is that it is an extremely varied industry. It consists of a group of industries whose common feature is that they are all engaged in producing food from the soil. Sometimes the interests of one branch of agriculture are not the same as those of another, and that is a factor which has to be borne continually in mind in considering agricultural policy. It is a very vital industry. Based as it is upon the processes of life, it is not affected, perhaps, to the same degree as some more mechanical occupations are affected by political changes. Often, when I survey the field of Europe to-day, and think that, in spite of all the alarums and excursions, the peasants of Europe are still proceeding with their ancestral occupations, I feel that the peasant mind has in it something of great stability, and something which we should be very wrong to exorcise out of our own people.
For the information of the Committee I propose to contrast our position now with our position at two other periods—the one the pre-war period, and the other the period of 1930. The crisis in that year and the War were two dreadful experiences which left their mark upon agriculture, and it might be of interest to compare how we stand now with how we stood in those two periods. First of all, may I say that I do so in no party spirit? I am grateful for the interest that the House has shown in agricultural matters, and I think that these two dates are so crucial that it will inform our discussion if we refer to the position at those times. If we take first the period before the War—and I choose as the basis of my comparison the year 1913—arid contrast that with the year 1936, we see on the side of production the following facts. Our wheat production to-day is very much the same as it was in 1913. Our production of meat is up by some 8,000,000 cwts.; our production of milk is up by 329,000,000 gallons; our eggs are up by 3,000,000,000—an increase of some 200 per cent.; and as for sugar, there was none in 1913, and we now produce at home about a quarter of our total requirements. There have also been increases, though some of them are very slight in character, in the domain of fruit and vegetables. I could give the figures if they are wanted, but I cite as an example

the production of apples, which has risen from some 4,000,000 cwts. in 1913 to some 10,000,000 cwts. in 1936.
These increases have been accompanied by decreases, and it is right that the Committee should be put in possession of these too. There has been a decline in the production of oats amounting to 294,000 tons. The Committee will observe that, while there has been an increase in what I may describe as human foodstuffs, the decline has occurred in the raising of animal feeding stuffs. I must say that oats are not a very happy instance for a Scotsman to refer to, for we have the authority of a great Englishman that, as regards England and Wales, at any rate, oats are to be considered exclusively as an animal feeding stuff. The position with regard to oats is that, although there is that decline, we are to-day about 97 per cent. self-sufficient in this product. The importation of oats from overseas is almost negligible; there is none from foreign sources, and only a little from Canada. Of course, the consumption of oats has been affected by the decline in the horse population, due to the invention of the internal combustion engine, an invention which presents statesmen with problems outside the realm of agriculture as well as inside it. Barley is also down by some 680,000 tons, and in this connection it is interesting to notice that the production of beer has decreased from 36,000,000 barrels in 1913 to 22,000,000 in 1936. I am informed that, in the case of some beer at least, barley is used in its manufacture. There have also been declines in peas and beans.
If the position is summarised, I think it will be found to be as follows, in contrast with 1913. As regards human food, there has been an increase of production in the dietary which is preferred by the public to-day; that is to say, there has been a rise in the production of milk, eggs, vegetables and protective foods generally. A remarkable feature of the change in agricultural production is the way in which it has adapted itself to a growing realisation on the part of the public of the great value to health of fresh food, and fresh food means British food in most cases. Looking at the animal foods, we see that there has been a decrease. It has been found by farmers to be economically cheaper to buy abroad when the prices of animal feeding stuffs were at the low levels at which they have


been during the past few years. It has been a better proposition for many farmers to buy imported feeding stuffs than to raise their own. The Committee will, I hope, allow me to express the opinion that that is not a good thing. I would like to see more of our feeding stuffs for animals produced at home, and it was to that end that we inaugurated last summer the grassland campaign, with the subsidies for lime and basic slag, and also the price insurance scheme for cereals such as oats and barley. The decline is chiefly in what I may call fodder root crops, and it represents in the main, I believe, a change of great importance in agriculture, namely, the change-over from arable sheep farming to grassland sheep farming. I would point out that a great deal of the loss in respect of these food crops is compensated for by the introduction of sugar-beet tops and pulp.
It is interesting to examine further the position as compared with pre-War times, and to see what fraction of our total requirements of these foods is now produced at home as compared with pre-War. Except for butter, barley, peas, and, to a very slight extent, beef and mutton, we are now producing a larger percentage of our total requirements than we were before the War. I may say that in the case of butter I was surprised to find that actually, according to the figures, we are producing more butter than we were before the War, though the importation is so great that the percentage we produce of our total requirements is less. These facts are not very easy to assimilate with many of the statements that are made about agriculture, but I think the Committee should have them. I believe you cannot really gauge what is happening on the production side of agriculture by a mere comparison of arable acreage on the one hand and the number of workers employed on the other, or, as I have sometimes seen it argued, the number of horses employed in agriculture now as compared with pre-War. As I have shown, our production of human foodstuffs, like milk, meat, eggs and vegetables, is actually up.
The fact is that there has been a profound change in the methods of agriculture in these years. It is a change that can be described roughly, but not quite accurately, as a change-over from arable

to grassland farming, and that change has taken place because grassland farming has been more profitable than arable farming. This, of course, affects the acreage under arable cultivation, as does also the annual loss of agricultural land which we suffer as a result of building and of the use of land for defence purposes. But although I have often seen it argued that this tendency, which is a very old one, is bad for the country as a whole, I would point out that it has certain compensations. In the first place, animals contribute very greatly to the fertility of the soil, and, when we consider the possible troubles in which we may be, it is good to reflect that in our livestock population at the present time there is a store of valuable food of the value of some £170,000,000, not concentrated in any one place, but scattered over our fields. At any rate, as a matter of policy it would be a very great mistake to change this natural economic tendency back to an arable cultivation, unless you could make that arable cultivation permanently prosperous. There are compensations in our grassland system which should not be lost sight of. I have heard it argued that because there are fewer horses on farms to-day, agriculture must be declining; but there are 50,000 tractors on our farms to-day, whereas before the War there were practically none.
The change that has been a continuous process for a number of years, from arable farming, has had an effect on the number of workers employed; but it is not true to say that, because there are fewer workers, production has declined. We all regret the fact that there are fewer agricultural workers, but I suggest that that is not actually a sign in itself of a decline in production. A very interesting control set of figures is available in East Anglia, where, in a most important agricultural district of England, the soil and climate are such that arable farming must be the mainstay of the population. They have received assistance under the Sugar Industry Act, and arable farming has gone on. In East Anglia, the figures for the period from 1931 to the present day show that the decline in the amount of labour employed has been very small indeed. In the whole of the district the decline is only 2 per cent., while in the Isle of Ely, and the Holland district of Lincolnshire, there have been actual increases in the number of men employed.


This important matter is one of the factors to be taken into account. The fact is that the agricultural worker to-day has changed from his pre-war predecessor, not only quantitatively but qualitatively. He was more numerous before the War, but often miserably paid and badly housed, and his output was very much lower than what it is to-day. I, personally, do not lament the increase in the status of the agricultural worker to what it is to-day. He is better paid, and I hope he will be better housed, and is producing per man much more than his predecessor did. I should like to see the industry in a position to pay him better and to put a great many more of him on the land.
The Committee should not imagine that in the interval between now and prewar times agriculture has been static, or that the tendencies we have seen have gone on undisturbed. There have been great disturbances. The first was the War, when you had a temporary scarcity. In 1917, there was a Measure, the Corn Production Act, which was designed to increase our agricultural production. There was a period of high prices and a short-lived, and somewhat artificial prosperity, in the agricultural world. But when the War was over the Corn Production Act was repealed and there was a steady deterioration, to relieve which, from the point of view of prices, nothing was done until there was some relief in the matter of rates, culminating in their abolition by my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Health. These processes had their inevitable end in the collapse of agriculture all over the world in and around 1931.
The first important step we had to take was the introduction of the Agricultural Marketing Act in 1931—a good Act, which suffered from the one drawback, in our eyes fatal, that it did not propose in any way to control the importation of food from abroad. We had a continuous flooding of the market, and I believe that if that process had been allowed to go on unchecked it might have landed not only the producers, but ultimately the consumers, too, in a very serious position, because when land goes out of production there follows a period of scarcity and high prices. Surely we should try to arrange our markets so that producers and consumers alike are saved these wild

fluctuations in prices, and assured of a steady supply. In 1931, when this Government came in, we started with the horticultural duties. These produced a very marked change in the outlook of those who derived a livelihood from gardening. Accompanied, as they have been, by many improvements in the packing of goods by the producers, they have made the horticultural branch of the industry second, I believe, to none in the world to-day. Also, there was added control of imports from abroad. We saw boards come into being for dealing with hops, potatoes, pigs, bacon and milk. These boards I think have brought a new measure of stability into the agricultural world. That is shown by the fact that when there is a proposal to abolish them the farmers generally vote in considerable numbers for their extension.
One is forced to the conclusion that this new stability, offering, as it does, some hope of remuneration proportionate to the risks involved in farming, has encouraged men to produce more, and we have seen as a result an improvement. I need not remind the House that the livestock industry, one of the worst sufferers from the depression, received assistance of various kinds, which was codified last year under the Livestock Industry Act. These commodity Measures are still going on. The House has now just finished considering the new Pigs and Bacon Bill. At the end of last summer we introduced and passed an Act which provided grants for lime and slag, for drainage, for new State veterinary services, and for the eradication of animal disease, and also made provision with regard to the quantity of wheat that will rank for the full subsidy, and a new price insurance plan for oats and barley. I have made my comparison with pre-war times. I think the fact that these figures can be given to-day is very largely the result of the measures taken in the last six years. When we compare production now with that of 1930, we see that the production of beef is up by nearly 2,000,000 cwts., of pig meat by nearly 4,000,000 cwts., of milk by 76,000,000 gallons, of wheat by 348,000 tons—and I believe this year's crop, for which the husbandmen will, I hope, be paid a bit better, will be the best since 1922. Apples, to give an example of fruit, have increased by more than 5,000,000 cwts., and vegetables and other horticultural products also show


satisfactory increases. This is an example of agricultural expansion in a relatively short time.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Before my right hon. Friend completes his comparison, will he show what is the difference between the population of this country before the War, in 1931, and in 1937; and will he also make a comparison of the purchasing power of the people?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot give my hon. Friend the information about population figures, because I have lately been concerned more about the population of four-footed creatures than of my own kind. But the point about the purchasing power is undoubtedly very important. Unless the purchasing power of the people keeps steady agriculturists, in common with other people, are bound to suffer. We are all interdependent in this country. I do not know what point my hon. Friend is going to make on that. The whole policy of the Government in regard to the purchasing power of people in the towns has also had an important effect.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: The point I am making is that the population has increased and the purchasing power of the people has increased, but that increase is benefiting the foreign producer more than the British producer.

Mr. Morrison: Not at all. If my hon. Friend wishes to develop that argument, no doubt he can find an opportunity in the course of the Debate, when I shall be very glad to give him a reply. Since 1930 agricultural production has increased. I agree with my hon. Friend that purchasing power is an important element in that, but I think I can claim for the Government that they have increased the purchasing power of the people as well as improved the agricultural position.

Major Braithwaite: Has my right hon. Friend figures in regard to turnover?

Mr. Morrison: I can get the figures quite easily, and give them to my hon. and gallant Friend. I was saying that in a relatively short time, in years which have been very difficult for agriculture throughout the world, this has been achieved, and it shows what can be done if you proceed on the simple lines of

trying to improve the conditions of the farmers and their workers. We have proceeded always, with regard to marketing organisation, on the line that the price of agricultural produce is the vital consideration as far as the farmer is concerned, and that he is entitled to measures to protect his markets against the dumping which was a feature of previous years. We have proceeded on the basis that the home producer has the right to the first place in his own market, that the other nations in the Commonwealth have the right to the second place, and that the third place ought to be given to those foreign nations whose trade is of benefit to our industrial workers—those nations which trade with us. We cannot permit the unregulated use of our shores as a dumping ground for all sorts of products. We have our arrangements with foreign countries whereby we employ tariffs in some cases, quantitative regulation in others, and in the case of the Livestock Industry Act we took power to regulate quantitatively the importation of meat from all sources. In the first place, we entrusted the task of that regulation to an organisation of producers themselves, that is to say, to the International Beef Conference, which has hitherto carried on the duty of regulating the market very satisfactorily.
The House will have been interested to hear of the resolutions which were recently passed at a conference of producers held in Sydney, Australia, and I thought myself that they were of sufficient interest to circulate their exact terms in the OFFICIAL REPORT a short time ago. On that subject, I should like to make the following statement. His Majesty's Government have noted with great interest and have given careful consideration to the resolutions which were unanimously adopted at the recent British Empire Producers' Conference held in Sydney, New South Wales, in connection with Australia's 150th anniversary celebrations. The conference was organised by associations of primary producers in various countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations and was attended by delegates from those bodies. While the conference was, therefore, in no sense an official gathering, His Majesty's Government are impressed by the evident desire of the spokesmen of the farmers' associations to play their part in the development of marketing organisation on a voluntary


basis by the institution of commodity councils on the lines of the Empire Beef Council and the International Beef Conference, with a view to the better regulation of the flow of supplies of primary products to the United Kingdom market in the interests of producers and of consumers, and the development, where possible, of new markets for Empire surpluses of such produce.
It is understood that the recommendations of the Sydney Conference are now engaging the attention of the farmers' organisations in Empire countries. The general bearing which these recommendations, if endorsed by farmers' organisations, will have on Empire agricultural policies and the question of their applicability in particular cases is no doubt also being carefully studied by His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions concerned. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are in general agreement with the view expressed by the conference that orderly marketing of primary products is necessary in order to maintain continuity of supplies and to prevent instability of price levels and speculation. In cases where action is desirable to secure stable conditions in the United Kingdom market, the Government would prefer that the responsibility for such action should be assumed by producers in the various countries concerned and exercised in the light of joint discussion of the problems involved. The Government, therefore, cordially welcome the proposal that Empire producers' organisations should co-operate with one another and with corresponding bodies in other countries to establish such commodity councils as may be deemed necessary, producer-controlled and financed, the representation thereon being on the lines of the Empire Beef Council and International Beef Conference, and the decisions of which to be effective shall be unanimous.
I think that that points to a prospect of another great step in the task of orderly marketing of agricultural products, and I believe that that should be the chief interest of everyone, whether he be a producer or a consumer. I hope the lesson is now well learnt that this great edifice we have built up of commerce and industry in various countries rests upon the foundation of primary production throughout the world, the Empire and our own country. If the primary producer is denied his proper reward, it soon brings

ruin upon those who hope to sell him their goods, and I believe that stable organisation for a market of this kind would really be a contribution not only to the prosperity of agriculture, but to the prosperity of trade and commerce as a whole throughout the world.
I will conclude my long story with a reference to the progress which has been made in the latest, and by no means least, step which we have taken to help agriculture, that is, the Agriculture Act of last summer. Dealing first of all with the problems of drainage, the Committee will recollect that the steps to be taken were intended to supplement the great work done by catchment boards on the main arterial rivers by grants to internal drainage boards for the better equipment of their particular districts and the reduction of flooding, and so on, in their own areas. Up to date we have approved some £200,000 worth of schemes of this character, and if the Committee really does think that that is a small figure, there is one fact to be borne in mind, and that is, that the Act did not receive the Royal Assent until the very last day of July, and there was not as much time to prepare schemes on the part of the local authorities as there will be this year. I hope that they will continue to take advantage of it on an increasing scale, because there is no doubt that the problem of drainage in this country is one of the most fundamental things we have to face.
As regards lime and slag, the Committee will recall that we made a departure whereby we were prepared to pay half the cost of lime, including transport, and a quarter of the cost of basic slag for the farmers to put on their land. At the time there were many views expressed as to how far this would be taken advantage of by the agricultural population, and I am very glad to be able to assure the Committee that the response has been very great indeed. In the first season, from September, 1937, to May, 1938, 409,000 tons of slag ranked for contribution as against 240,000 tons delivered in the previous year. There have been also immense increases in the amount of lime applied to the soil, and though we have not the figures for liming before this scheme was put into operation, we know that under the scheme 1,250,000 tons of lime had gone on the land, and the cost has been £920,000.

Major Dower: How many applications have been made?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know how many applications, but it is a very large number, and I can get it for my hon. and gallant Friend. The amount that has been paid out is £920,000. It may be said that this restoration of the ancient practice of liming the soil will be of immense benefit to the farmer community and to our, agriculture as a whole. There was also a Section of the Act which dealt with the problem of animal health, which at the time I remember telling the Committee cost our agriculturists, it is estimated, £14,000,000 a year. We established a State service, taking over a large number of veterinary officers previously employed by local authorities, with the desire of having a drive against animal diseases on a much wider front than had ever been done before. I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that this transfer was smoothly accomplished, and the State service came into being on 1st April last. Within a few hours of its inauguration it had to combat a very serious position with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. I am glad to say that though we have suffered from that scourge, this year we are now out of danger as far as that is concerned.

Mr. Churchill: We did far better than other countries.

Mr. Morrison: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. It is the fact that though the figures to us are very distressing, they are simply nothing in comparison to the ravages of the disease in Continental countries. The fact that that is so gives us an additional ground to be grateful for our island position and for the fact that we have been able to control it so successfully. Another disease which is very destructive is tuberculosis, and I am very glad to be able to report to the Committee a very satisfactory increase in the past year in the number of attested herds. There are now nearly 1,900 herds attested, and there are about 2,000 more awaiting the tests which, as the Committee will remember, we are assisting under the Agriculture Act. Also the scheme has been extended to beef herds as from 1st July, this present month.

Mr. Kirkwood: How does that statement affect Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: I am answering only for England and Wales at the moment. The question with regard to agriculture in Scotland ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Boothby: You are giving us the beef.

Mr. Morrison: Oh, yes, and I think that the Committee may rest assured that Scotland will not receive less than her proper share. Another feature of the Act was the subsidy for oats and barley, the price insurance plan. We have already paid £165,000 by way of assistance to the barley growers who are registered under this scheme. The wheat part of the Act has, as I have said, resulted in a very large increase this year, and I hope it will be a very good crop indeed. These are the only matters with which at present I would trouble the Committee.
The other great activities of the Department in research, education, marketing and so on, are going on with vigour. The problem of agricultural research is a fundamental one, and I am glad to say that that has gone on very well indeed in the past year. We have followed, and intend to follow, the policy that we have adopted, the aim of which is to attack each of the many problems presented through the instrument of improving returns and the prosperity of farmers and their workers, in the belief, as I hold, that a prosperous rural community can solve many of its own problems for itself. The process is necessarily a slow one, as each of these problems has been left long neglected and is none the easier of solution from that cause, but I think agriculturists may take courage from the revolution which has taken place in the last seven years in the attitude of the Government and of this House towards the oldest and the greatest of our industries.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd George: We have had, as we might expect, a very interesting speech from the right hon. Gentleman, and I think that most Members in the Committee will feel that it is also a very disappointing speech. We had hoped that he would have given us some indication of a realisation by the Government of what is the position of agriculture, and of any plans that they have in their


minds for increasing substantially the food supplies of the country not merely for peace, but to prepare for the grim emergencies of war. We have not heard a word. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was complacent. He seemed to be not merely satisfied with the position of agriculture as it is, but was inclined to boast about it. He does not seem to realise that the industry itself is throughly discouraged at the present moment. It is seething with discontent, and the country as a whole is alarmed at the neglect by the Government of measures for putting us into a position in the event of war as would spare this country the horrors of starvation and the dread of having to surrender because our people were not adequately fed.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us a review of the position of agriculture. It was one-sided, it was very inadequate, and, while I am not saying that he was deliberately doing it, it was very misleading. He pointed out that we had more beef, and I think he said we had more mutton, and more apples. I am very glad, as an apple grower, to know that there is a greater demand for British apples, but apples will not save us in the days of famine that may come in a great war. The hon. Member for Southamp, ton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) pricked the bubble completely with one question. Has the population not increased? It has increased by something like 5,000,000. There are 5,000,000 more mouths to feed since 1913, and yet, according to the right hon. Gentleman, we have practically the same quantity of food. It is not merely that. He talked about the increase in beef, but he did not tell us that that beef is not fed on British grass, on British corn and British roots. The production of roots has gone down. There has been an increase of 700,000 tons in feeding stuffs imported from across the seas. That beef is practically of foreign importation. Those 700,000 tons of feeding stuffs have been converted into beef. He omitted that fact.
He omitted what I think is the most important fact, and that is the serious decrease in the fertility of the soil That is what will matter if ever we are engaged in a great conflict with some of the powerful nations of the world which are arming at the present time. There is this serious decrease of fertility. He quoted a very long resolution from

Australia, the full purport of which I did not gather, but I shall read it to see what it means. He did not read the resolution passed by the Joint Standing Committee of the Central Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union, a few months ago. This is their view:
Home agriculture is in a position much less favourable than it was in 1914 to meet the demands that might be made on home production in the event of war.
That is their view, and I do not think that anyone can challenge it.
I should like to review the real position of agriculture in this country at this moment, when we are arming for the defence of the country. We are to-day spending, perhaps, £2,500,000,000 on Defence, but what are we spending in order to prepare against the emergency which very nearly broke us in the Great War? Go round the country, and what do you see? You see land going out of cultivation. We are 2,000,000 acres down in arable land since 1913. The right hon. Gentleman says that that gives us more grass. What sort of grass? Does anyone tell me that the grass lands of this country are comparable with what they were in 1913? They, too, are going out of cultivation. The returns which the right hon. Gentleman will get will be about pastures and grass. If you drive across the country on roads which are familiar, or you traverse roads once or twice a year in the west, the north or the south, you find that year after year there is a visible deterioration. Fields that were verdant with fresh grass, with growing corn or with roots, are now yellow with ragwort and every kind of poisonous abomination. I have seen them and I have talked to a great many people about them. I have made inquiries in various parts of the country from agricultural experts who are in control of agriculture and they tell me that the grass lands have been neglected. They would not fatten stock. What is happening in a county like Anglesey, which has been noted as a fattening county? The grass is deteriorating seriously. I had a report from there the other day to say that there was a visible defertilisation of their grass lands, that they cannot do anything comparable to what they used to do. It is no use telling the House of Commons and the country that we are in the same position as we were in in 1913. We ought to have been much better then,


but we are certainly not in the same position to-day as we were at that time.
A county agricultural expert, a man I know well, tells me that farmers are concentrating on the best lands. They are heavily manuring them. Since 1913 there has been an enormous increase in artificial manures, which stimulate the soil and give the appearance of producing far more per acre, but that expert said that the farmers are almost completely neglecting the second-rate land. In other countries the second-class lands are a higher percentage of the total cultivable land than are the best. In this country we have a higher percentage than in Germany or even Denmark of good lands, but the percentage of our second-rate and third-rate land, which is cultivable, is very much higher than the best. The farmers are concentrating on the best and letting the rest go out of cultivation year by year. These grass lands are deteriorating, defertilising, and it is these lands we shall have to depend upon for an increase in our foodstuffs if ever we come to a great war.
May I at this point say that I had arranged to make this statement on behalf of my hon. Friends before the Prime Minister had delivered his speech at Kettering? Therefore, the suggestion that I am coming here to make an attack upon him, is not true, although I shall have something to say about that speech. The arrangement that I should make this statement was fixed days before the Kettering speech. I simply wanted to make a speech on the present position of agriculture. The Minister talked about our interest in agriculture being new. I think I was interested in it before he was born. That is by the way. The Prime Minister said that the Government have measures ready to put into operation, immediately there is a war, to increase food production in this country. He is an inveterate townsman and it required a pure townsman to make so really ignorant a statement as that. The idea that you can take land, defertilised land, neglected land, and just plant it and get your crop, is ludicrous. No man who knows anything at all about the subject would ever dream of making a statement of that kind.
When land gets into a condition of that kind it takes years to condition it. I know it from my own experience. We

discovered that in the last War, and it is one of the experiences of the War that we ought to have profited by. You must keep up the fertility of the land so that you can turn it to the production of any food which the nation requires at any particular moment or in any emergency. To say that you are going to allow all this land to go out of cultivation, to become defertilised, to become practically waste, growing nothing but weeds, or converting it into fields which produce neither milk nor beef, because there is no vitality, no life in the grass, and then to say that you can use that land the moment war occurs, is sheer nonsense. If that is the Government's idea of preparing for war, which is one of the things I do know something about, I wonder what they are doing about aeroplanes.
The whole of this neglect is disastrous from the point of view of the fertility of the soil. The other day I came across a letter in the "Times" from Sir Christopher Tumor, who has made a lifelong study of this problem, and he is a singularly able man. He said:
So much can be done and done economically. The area of arable land is shrinking"—
This is the sentence to which I would particularly call attention—
and millions of acres of grass lands call out for reconditioning. Our land is not only the best storehouse but the safest source of supply. I am certain that the most effective way of strengthening our food defence is to bring peace-time food production up to its economic maximum.
I should like to quote from Professor Stapledon, the greatest living authority on grass lands in the British Empire. He has made a 25 years' study of the question, not merely in the glens but on the moorlands and on the hillsides of Wales. He was the man on whose authority I submitted to the Cabinet proposals for lime and basic slag and for drainage. The answer given to me then was what I will call the Kettering answer. If they wanted lime they could get it under the Agricultural Credits Act, and besides there was the objection—all of my proposals were given exactly the same answer—of the effect it would have upon our customers abroad if we were to increase our own production by this means. The Kettering speech was not a temporary lapse, a kind of indiscretion of which even the most careful speaker may occasionally be guilty. That is the sort


of excuse given in an article in the "Times." In a very grandmotherly way it rebukes the Prime Minister and tells him not to tell the truth too startlingly. That last word is mine. But Professor Stapledon has made a study of grass lands. Although he is a Devonian he has made his experiments in Wales, and I can assure the Prime Minister that farming in Wales is just as good as it is in England. I am not quite sure whether it is as good as it is in some parts of Scotland. The conclusion to which Professor Stapledon came was:
Only 39·8 per cent. of the lands of Wales are doing their duty. Sixty per cent. of the lands of Wales are in urgent need of drastic improvement and wholesale reclamation.
I could give plenty of quotations to show that we are not making the best use of the land; and to make the best use of the land will be a question of life and death for us, as it was between 1914 and 1918. Let me touch upon another very vital matter. There is a declining population on the land. The population generally has increased by 5,000,000 since 1930 and the occupied population has increased by about 3,000,000. But the agricultural population has steadily decreased, and is still decreasing. I see by a newspaper which at one time was the official organ of the Prime Minister, the "Daily Express"—which is now following the practice of savage tribes who beat their neighbours because the weather is bad—that there is a decrease of 1,000 per month going on at this moment, while these complacent and optimistic speeches are being delivered. Since 1921 the decrease in the workers on the land has been 238,000.

Sir William Wayland: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many were due to mechanical power being used?

Mr. Lloyd George: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to develop my argument in my own way. I do not mind the question, and perhaps it may be as well for me to answer it at once. Any good farmer using mechanical power, if he is farming well will increase the number of labourers on the land. That is my own experience, as well as the experience of my neighbours.

Sir W. Wayland: It is not the experience of most farmers.

Mr. Lloyd George: There has been a reduction of 27 per cent. in the number of workers on the soil, but the most serious reduction that has taken place has been in the youth on the land, in the young workers. The general reduction has been 27 per cent. But the young people are leaving in droves and there has been a reduction since 1921 of 44 per cent, in the number of young workers on the land. Young labourers and farmers' sons are fleeing from the land as if it were stricken with the plague. That is the measure of their confidence in the Government's agricultural policy. Compare the position here with that in other countries. I have given the figures before, but I am going to repeat them until I get them into the minds of the people. Belgium, which is a great industrial country, has 19 per cent. of its population on the land, Holland, which is also largely industrial, has 22 per cent., Germany has 30·5 per cent, on the land, but in England and Wales there are only 5·5 per cent, on the land. In 1913 it was 7 per cent.; now it has gone down to 5·5 per cent., and it is still going down and down. In France there are 8,200,000 persons on the land, in Germany 9,800,000, but here only 1,250,000, and the number is still going down rapidly.
Something has been said about the towns. There are agricultural towns as well as industrial towns. There are towns which depend almost entirely for their livelihood and for their industries upon agriculture, and when you talk about 90 per cent. of the population living in towns a very considerable proportion of the population which lives in the towns is dependent upon agriculture in the surrounding areas. What is the position there? I have taken 20 well-known agricultural towns and I find that there has been a reduction in the population of these towns since the census of 1911 of anything between 10 per cent. up to 36 per cent. The villages are decaying. Instead of being better off than we were in 1913 we are getting worse and worse by every test that can be applied, and the process is going on despite milk boards, potato boards and pig boards and heavy but ill-distributed subsidies. It is no use talking about our not being able to compete with the foreigner. The competition was worse in 1913. They are beginning to suffer from defertilisation in huge areas. Their prairies have been


exhausted and thousands, indeed millions, of acres have been more or less destroyed for agricultural purposes.
We are getting into a stronger position to face their competition year by year. We have the best markets in the world, a greater density of population, more purchasing power, and an approximation of markets to the fields of production, but our marketing system, in spite of all these boards, is a thoroughly ramshackle affair. The little experience I have had of it shows me that it is a joke; a bad joke for the producer and not a very good joke for the consumer. The only man who enjoys the joke is the middle man. Judging by the supreme test, not merely by an increased production of cattle and pigs which have been fed on imported foods, but by the test of a strong virile population of men and women living in the villages, the industry of agriculture is on the decline. There are three factors which make it very serious. The first is chronic unemployment. For 17 years our unemployment figures have run from 1,000,000 up to 2,800,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer appointed a Commission to investigate the causes of unemployment in the distressed areas. He appointed very able Under-Secretaries and they did their work very thoroughly. There was one very able report by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury. That is a very important post, and any man who is chosen for it must have a great variety of gifts. This is what he said after his investigation:
No comprehensive survey of the condition of the Durham coalfield can avoid the conclusion that the ultimate destiny of a large part of the county, now industrialised, must be to return to agriculture.
He went on to say that unless that was done, he could not see anything for the surplus population in the mining industry except to be condemned to a permanent state of pauperisation. For 17 years the unemployment figures have been between 1,000,000 and 2,800,000; at the present moment, 1,800,000 are out of work. Here is an industry which the right hon. Gentleman described, in eloquent words, as being vital, which is producing more than the whole of Canada, which is producing £250,000,000. It is capable of enormous expansion, according to the

advice of every expert. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to name one expert who is worth quoting who will not tell him that we could increase enormously the produce of the soil. You need more labour to do that, and you have 1,800,000 out of work.
There is the problem of under-nutrition. According to all the testimony, millions of the people of this country are not receiving enough food to sustain life efficiently. There is the question of security in war. We have the warning of 1914, and it is incredible that we should have forgotten it. We had a colossal combat on land for 4½ years. That distracted our attention from the more decisive death struggle on the high seas. It was a struggle between two mighty Empires as to which would starve the other into surrender. There was a blockade on our side against unlimited sinking of ships by submarines. It was touch-and-go who would win. I wonder whether the Committee realises how near it was. Germany was producing nine-tenths of the food which would maintain her population. Had she rationed as we rationed at the end, sternly but fairly, had she not been over-confident and actually sold grain to Holland, thinking the war would be over soon, had she not taken her young labourers off the land and put practically all of them into her army because Hindenburg thought they were the best fighters, she could have got through. There would not have been a very full ration, but a ration that would have carried her through, with the help of what she was getting in Rumania and in Russia. It was food that beat her even more than fighting. She and Austria had to keep 1,000,000 of their men in Russia in order to collect food for their starving population.
I saw an allusion to this in one of the newspapers recently. Her men, having broken our line, half-famished, with inadequate and poor rations, were held up by dumps of our food stores and the time they lost prevented them from penetrating the gap between the French armies and ours. But for food, it would have ended in a stalemate. If we had not managed to defeat the submarine, the value of which the Germans themselves did not realise for the first year or two, it would not have been a stalemate for us, but a surrender. That lesson, grim and deadly, is not taken in by a Govern-


ment that is spending £2,500,000,000 of money upon armaments and leaving this, the weakest point in our armour, practically unrepaired and unstrengthened. I do not understand it. I do not understand the House of Commons standing it, and I cannot understand why the nation does not compel them to deal with it. Nobody knows what is the danger, but if you want to precipitate the danger, go on as you are, because the enemy knows it just as well as you do, or better.
What has been the position since then? According to the Central Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union, you are in a much less favourable position for dealing with the food problem than you were in 1914. The land is not as fertile; there is defertilisation. The population has increased by 5,000,000. The Prime Minister says that we can depend on our ships. We have fewer ships by 2,000,000 tons, and when you come to the ships that carry cargoes, as Lord Runciman pointed out the other day—I do not know why the hon. Gentleman opposite is laughing at that state of affairs—we are down, according to Lord Runciman, 2,000 ships of the type that carry cargo, as compared with the position at the end of the War. What is still more important, the danger is double. The submarines are much more powerful than they were then, and there is a new factor which was not in existence then, bombing from the air. As far as I can recollect, not a single ship was hit by an aeroplane during the War. If anybody can recall one, I should like to hear of it. It is much more difficult now to protect ships on the high seas, and, what I think is still more dangerous, in the harbours. Aeroplanes sweeping along the great docks at Bristol, Hull, London and Southampton, may miss most, but sink one. There may be more sinkings from that than from submarines.
That is one reason why I deplore the Government's attitude towards the sinking of food ships in Spain. I cannot understand it. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister may depend upon it that the answer which was given to him by General Franco to-day is not General Franco's answer. He has taken a long time before giving it. I have not the slightest doubt that it is an answer concerted with both Germany and Italy, and that it represents their definite and determined policy with regard to the sinking

of ships, food ships or any other ships, in harbours or on the high seas, in future. That is why I thought we ought to have taken the challenge immediately. It is of most vital interest to us. Submarines, a blockade—the blockade captures the ship, and the submarine sinks the ship; but there are boats, and several escape. Here it is bombing without warning, machine-gunning without warning, it is a question of being out to kill; that is the policy with which you are confronted. And you are depending upon shipping, which is down by 2,000,000 tons, which is liable to the double danger in a coming war, and your land is less fertile. You give us £900,000 for lime—useful, but not adequate for the demand which may be made upon it.
The Prime Minister assured us that we had a reserve and that we were going to spend £7,500,000 in providing a reserve, to be ready for the beginning of the war, until this defertilised land comes into production. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) gave a very effective answer to that. He said that if you spend it on corn, altogether it would last five weeks; if you spend it on wheat, sugar and whale oil, it will only last for two. The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is able to assure us that, if the worst comes to the worst, he can give us a fortnight's ration of sugared blubber. I think that he could perhaps afford to pass on his ration to some of his colleagues. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheap."] I remember that in November, 1916, we were told that in London there were two days' supplies of wheat, in Bristol, only two weeks' supply; the Wheat Commissioner had purchased 700,000 quarters in North America, but there were no steamers to bring the wheat to England. That was two years before the end of the War and before the unlimited submarine warfare began. We would not have accepted this policy, for which not the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture but the Government as a whole, and especially the Prime Minister, are certainly responsible.
In another place, Lord Feversham said that go per cent. of our population were in the towns and that we must consider them first. We must, of course, consider the majority of the population, but what would happen to that go per cent, if there were a failure of food


supplies in this country? Our interests are identical and all this talk about town and country is disastrous. I think it is imbecile. Are no customers worth having except customers across the seas? Are customers living on our farm lands not worth something? The only difference is that we are selling to customers across the seas who put up high protective duties against us, whereas these people from our fields and our farms who buy the goods of our manufacturers, are putting up no tariffs against us. This talk about town and country as if they were rivals is all wrong. I think it is time it was ended, and I was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture made reference to it in the course of his speech.
The Prime Minister in his famous Kettering speech—probably much too famous for his comfort—talked about those who made claims for self-sufficiency. I do not know anybody who says that we can produce all the food that we need in this country. The utmost that we have said is that you can double the quantity now produced, but that is not self-sufficiency. I know there are others who put it a little higher, but I do not know anybody who has claimed self-sufficiency. The higher you put it, the less would be the strain upon your shipping involved in making up the deficiency, and that is all we claim. The Prime Minister has laid down some very interesting doctrines for a Protectionist. They sounded like a sort of echo of the speeches which were once delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was a much more extreme Free Trader than I was—indeed I would say almost a rabid one. First of all, we are told that we must not increase our food by artificial means. What are tariffs? What are subsidies? What are all these for? They are all artificial means. Even when you give lime and basic slag to the farmers they are artificial manures. These are all artificial means. Then we are told that we must not increase our food to such an extent as to injure our customers across the seas. Well, that is extreme Free Trade doctrine.
I think that in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister there is a reversal to type. He was brought up as a Free Trader, in the most formative and creative period of his existence.

He was a stout Free Trader, and these are echoes from the speeches, which he heard in the Birmingham Town Hall in the days when he listened to that stoutest of Free Traders, John Bright, haranguing. He has gone back to that. It is the sort of thing that happens sometimes in my orchard. There is something that is called "bud pruning." You cut off all the bud branches that produce a particular apple and then you graft those little bud branches on to other apple trees in order to convert that stem to the production of a particular crop. But I will tell you what happens sometimes. Unless you are very careful—and I was warned about it—the old stock breaks out and if it does, it destroys the tree. You do not get either a Pippin or a Bramley. All that happens is that the tree is so utterly muddled, between the one and the other, that it produces only sour and desiccated crabs.
That is what has happened to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not a particular student of Adam Smith, but I think he never laid down the doctrine that Free Trade meant that you must not increase the production of your own country and develop its resources to the utmost. Richard Cobden never said so. Now that he has become a Free Trader, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman—let him take another course of study, and it will save him from speeches like the Kettering speech. Mr. Asquith was a very strong Free Trader. He was supposed to be a better Free Trader even than I am, but he never took that line. In 1913 he was at the head of proposals for a very drastic reform of the Land Laws with a view to increased production, and he was against dumping. But this is not Free Trade. The right hon. Gentleman says that we must not cut down our imports from these people to whom we sell goods.
Let us have a look at these great countries whose custom we must not cut down by increasing our food production. There is the Argentine. This is our total trade with them. In 1937 the imports were valued at £60,000,000, and our exports to them were £20,000,000. That is one of the countries, as to which we are told that we must not increase our food production too much, lest we deprive them of the means of paying for our exports to them. From Canada we imported £88,000,000 worth and we exported there


£28,000,000 worth. From Denmark we imported £36,000,000 worth and we exported £17,000,000 worth. From the United States we imported £114,000,000 worth and we exported there £42,000,000 worth. But we are told that we must not increase our food production by £100,000,000, lest we should deprive these countries of the means of paying for our exports to them. I take all the table which I have here, including re-exports, and I find that there are only two countries in whose cases we export more than we import. One is Ireland and the other is South Africa. The other eight countries which are on this list, together send to Great Britain £284,000,000 worth more of goods than we sell to them.
What is the good then of talking as the right hon. Gentleman did? What do these countries do with that surplus? Everybody knows the operation of bills of exchange. We draw bills of exchange and there is a deduction for what we sell to these countries. What becomes of the balance? These bills of exchange are generally used to enable those countries to buy the manufactures of Germany and the United States. That may be good business, but do not let us say that we cannot increase our production of food in this country, even though we run the risk of famine in war time, lest we damage these customers who are buying from us. Our adverse balance of trade is getting worse. If our invisible exports were calculated on the same principle as that on which they were calculated until recently, our adverse balance would alarm everybody. We have been distending our invisible exports by every conceivable means. We have said "We can double this item, or we can treble that item, or we can add a few millions more on to the other item," and so we have gone on, distending our invisible exports by all kinds of tricks of accountancy, until, at last the toy balloon has burst in our hands and we find, with all this, last year an adverse balance of trade of £52,000,000. The present outlook is worse. This is a very big annual subscription that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to pay to the Cobden Club.
I hope the Government will take the matter seriously in hand. I begged for years, one Government after another, to carry out a survey of our agricultural position. There have been surveys but

only a few hundreds of pounds have been spent on surveying very large territories. Only the Government can undertake a survey on a large scale as to the position of arable, the position of grassland, the position of drainage. Arterial drainage is not the only drainage that matters. There is field drainage. What is the position of the buildings? They are tumbling down. What is the position of the housing? That has a good deal to do with keeping people on the land. What can we do for reclamation? What is achievable in the matter of reconditioning? We have two very great countries that are at the present moment arming against us. They are spending thousands of millions on armaments, but they are also spending corresponding sums on developing the resources of their soil, because they know that that is an essential part of defence. Why should we cringe before them in their worst and not emulate them in their best? I appeal to the Government to undertake, to undertake at once, and to undertake boldly, a measure that will restore agriculture and increase the invaluable yield of an industry which is so essential for the health and security of this land.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who has just sat down, always speaks with the greatest authority on the question of war and the dangers of war, and I think the Committee will agree that he has delivered a very impressive warning to the Committee and the country on the potential dangers that lie ahead of us all. We must not forget, and we do not forget, that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs did see this country through by far the greatest crisis with which we have ever been faced, a crisis of a magnitude which we must all hope will never be repeated, and I think we were all impressed by the detailed disclosures which he made as to how near we were to disaster in 1917 and 1918. He also gave an analysis of the present position of agriculture and told us how acres were still going out of cultivation, how skilled workers had left the land, and how families were still leaving the land. I am afraid that that is broadly true, and it is a very unsatisfactory picture, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that I was a little disappointed that his speech contained


no detailed, constructive proposals to remedy the situation.

Mr. Lloyd George: The hon. Member, who is an experienced Parliamentarian, will know that you cannot, in Committee of Supply, make any suggestions which involve legislation, and pretty well all of them except what I did suggest, and that was a survey, would have involved legislation. Therefore I could not enter into them.

Mr. Boothby: The right hon. Gentleman threw out one or two broad ideas, but I still think that, within the limits of order, he might have done more. He is a practical farmer. I have sat for 14 years for a constituency which is the leading beef producing constituency in this country, but I am not, like he is, a practical farmer, and I should have been very interested to have heard some more practical suggestions, which I think he could have got round the point of Order to make, as he is a far older and more adroit Parliamentarian than I. I think he might have given us some clearer idea of what is in his mind, for I certainly do not feel that a survey is adequate to the present situation. It would help, but it is no solution. In so far as the right hon. Gentleman did make a general constructive suggestion, it seemed to me to imply that the Government of this country must somehow accept responsibility for keeping the second-rate land of this country, or a very large part of it, permanently fertilised. With all due respect, I think that is the wrong end from which to tackle the problem. It would cost an immense amount of money, and I think that it would not be money well spent.
If you are going to spend money in order to help agriculture, I think that the way to do it is to spend it by subsidising, in one form or another, the consumer, especially the poorest class of the community, and thus stimulate the demand for agricultural products. I do not believe that, either by way of public works, land settlement, land development, land drainage, or any of the other things which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, you can get a direct return on your money which is big enough to justify the expenditure involved. If you can get reasonable agricultural prices,

stable and remunerative prices, and increase the demand for home-grown food in this country, then people will go back to the land of their own accord, and you will not have to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in subsidising them to do so. I believe that the Government should concentrate at present on stimulating the demand for home-grown agricultural produce rather than by spending on—[An. HON. MEMBER: "HOW?"]
I will come to that in a moment, but I would remind the hon. Member that I too am governed by the Rules of order. I feel that it is in this direction, rather than in taking direct steps to fertilise the land, that the more hopeful line of advance lies.
The agricultural problem is a triple one. There is the problem of production, the problem of price, and the problem, finally, of distribution. And I would like especially to say a word or two upon the subject of distribution before I sit down, because I was disappointed that the Minister never touched upon this question, which is of vital importance, and which is a problem that has never been faced by any Government in this country since the War. The right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Health did a lot of valuable pioneer work in the direction of organising production, but he never attempted to organise the distributive side, and I hope that before the present Minister of Agriculture finishes his tenure of office he will concentrate on the distributive side.
I suggest that the Government are right in taking a balanced view of the whole agricultural problem, in striking a just balance, in weighing, commodity by commodity, what we ought to concentrate on, and in establishing an order of priority in these matters, all of which have a bearing on the war situation. I see, from the speech of Lord Feversham in the House of Lords, that the Government are not going to embark on any spectacular policy of artificial expansion, and I thought the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was rather contemptuous of that; but there is a good deal in it, and for my part I still cannot see why everybody was so shocked by the Prime Minister's Kettering speech. I have read and re-read it, and while I do not say that it was a very stimulating or encouraging speech, it did not seem to me to be such an awful speech as all


that. I thought he told the truth about the present situation very fairly. He did not go out of his way to announce or launch a new policy, but I do not think he excluded it, and I cannot see what all the fuss was about. It is after all true that we are to some extent dependent on international trade and that we have to take account of what foreigners buy from us and of what we hope to export to them.
I would now like to point out that one of the difficulties of agricultural production in this country at the moment—and it applies to agriculture all over the world—is the lack of capital. That is a fertiliser that is even more important than artificial manure, and it is very difficult to get adequate supplies of capital flowing into the agricultural industry of this country. I suggest that here is a line of attack for the Government to take up. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs mentioned credit facilities, and I think he implied that they were inadequate at present. I agree. I think that existing credit facilities are inadequate, and I think that, so far as 'good agriculturists are concerned, we might well approach what Mr. Keynes has described as zero interest for the farmers at this present time of emergency. I am sure that no farmer in this country, if he is a good farmer, ought to feel that he is not in a position to launch out on whatever schemes of improvement he considers necessary on his farm by reason of the fact that he cannot raise the money to do it.

Mr. Quibell: What for?

Mr. Boothby: For food production. That is what farming is generally for.

Mr. Quibell: If the hon. Member agrees with the Prime Minister that there should be very little increase in agricultural production, why worry about giving facilities for further production?

Mr. Boothby: I never said I thought there should be very little increase in agricultural production. All that I said was that I did not understand why people were so shocked by what the Prime Minister had said. But I never said, and I do not think, we ought not to increase agricultural production. I think we ought to increase it in every way possible, and I am suggesting one way now, by making

credits available on the cheapest possible terms to the farmers of this country. I further submit that in respect of lime and basic slag the Government have already embarked upon a policy which is both hopeful and useful. I do not see that it does any good, in the consideration of this problem, which, after all, is a national rather than a party problem, to do nothing but pour cold water the whole time on the efforts of the Government with regard to agriculture, and to disparage everything that is done, because it gets nobody any farther; and the fact remains that no Government in the history of this country has ever passed so many Acts for the benefit of agriculture or, as I am sure the hon. Member will agree, has paid out so much hard cash to agriculture, as the present Government.
I believe, in spite of what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said, that livestock remains the main source of farming in this country, and that we ought to concentrate on improving and on giving every possible encouragement to arable stock farming, which is and always has been the basis of British agriculture. That is really what I meant when I said that some selection was necessary, and some variation in the treatment of different commodities. I still maintain that the most monstrous waste of public money that has almost ever taken place in our history was the waste of public money on the sugar-beet subsidy. From the very start millions and millions were practically poured down the sink by successive Governments, and if we had only saved those millions and spent them in 20 other different directions, they would have done 20 times as much good to the agricultural industry. As it was, half the money went into the pockets of the Dutch company promoters, and—

Mr. De Chair: Does the hon. Member deny that we are now growing a third of our sugar in this country as a result of that policy?

Mr. Boothby: No. But I still think that is an absolute disaster from the point of view of Jamaica and of the Crown Colonies. I also think we ought to go easy, to say the least of it, where the question of pigs is concerned, because you have not got much transport in the time of war, and you have not got to bring your bacon all the way from


America. I think the idea, which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to hint at, that we should practically shut down all imports of bacon from a country like Denmark is monstrous. They are one of our best customers and friends, and they are a magnificent nation, and why should we abandon them and concentrate upon an enormous expansion of pig production at their expense at present, when I submit that it is far more important for us to concentrate upon cereals and upon livestock, which are the two vital agricultural products in time of war?
The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down mentioned also what I might describe as the social side of the industry, and there is no doubt that if you want to get workers back on the land, you must never leave that out of account. One of the reasons why there has been such a flow of agricultural workers from the countryside to the towns is that under modern conditions the amenities of the country are simply not good enough for the younger people. Anything the Government can do to improve them will redound enormously to the benefit of the agricultural industry as a whole. They have passed the Agricultural Wages Act, which will undoubtedly do good. But there are certain other aspects of the question which are equally important. There is the question of housing, for example. An Act was passed the other day making it a statutory obligation that you cannot recondition a house in Scotland without putting in a fixed bath, although everybody knows that the water supplies in the rural districts of Scotland are grossly inadequate, and that in many districts you could never fill a bath when it was put in. Why should you lay down silly clauses like that, which only make it more difficult to put cottages in the country in a proper condition? There is, again, the question of transport which is also closely bound up with the question of amenities in the country. This illustrates another of the difficulties in which we always find ourselves when discussing Departmental Estimates. We find that, whatever Department we may be talking about, questions concerning other Departments arise, and that they overlap each other. The association of the Ministry of Agriculture with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Transport is therefore bound to be very close indeed.

Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords' Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Street Playgrounds Act, 1938.
2. Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938.
3. Welsh Church (Amendment) Act, 1938.
4. Children and Young Persons Act, 1938.
5. Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act, 1938.
6. Herring Industry Act, 1938.
7. Mental Deficiency Act, 1938.
8. Road Haulage (Wages) Act, 1938.
9. Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938.
10. Post Office (Sites) Act, 1938.
11. Dumbarton Burgh (Water) Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
12. Pier and Harbour Order (Clacton-on-Sea) Confirmation Act, 1938.
13. Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1938.
14. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Keighley) Act, 1938.
15. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Cholderton and District Water) Act, 1938.
16. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Torquay) Act, 1938.
17. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Calne Water) Act, 1938.
18. Sheffield and District Gas Act, 1938.
19. Blackburn Corporation Act, 1938.
20. London and North Eastern Railway Act, 1938.
21. Redcar Corporation Act, 1938.
22. Southern Railway Act, 1938.
23. Swinton and Pendlebury Corporation Act, 1938.
24. Harwich Harbour Act, 1938.
25. Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power (Consolidation) Act, 1938.
26. West Thurrock Estate Act, 1938.
27. Surrey County Council Act, 1938.
28. Cowes Urban District Council Act, 1938.


29. Derwent Valley Water Act, 1938.
30. Clacton Urban District Council Act, 1938.

And to the following Measures passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

1. Liverpool City Churches Act, 1897 (Amendment), Measure, 1938.
2. Faculty Jurisdiction Measure, 1938.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,043,778, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and improvement of breeding etc., of livestock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing, fishery research and development, control of diseases of fish, etc., and sundry other services.

Mr. Boothby: When we were interrupted I had been saying that I thought the method of the Government in tackling the agricultural problem commodity by commodity was, on the whole, a sound one; and I ventured to suggest that there should be a certain order of priority among commodities, and that the greatest amount of attention should be given to arable stock farming. Both from the national point of view, in peace and in war, I regard the cultivation of cereals—wheat, oats and barley—and the raising of beef and mutton as very much more important than any other branch of agriculture. It is most necessary to have the maximum amount of those commodities in time of war; and I pointed out that in the matter of pigs, for example, it would be a pity if we now overdid pig production in this country. Not only would that cut off from us valuable customers in international trade, but I believe that in the last War it was found that the amount of food we had to bring in to feed a large pig production was so great as to make it not worth while from a practical point of view. Accordingly, I do not think there is anything to be

said from the national point of view for overdoing pig production, either from the Defence point of view in time of war, or from the trade point of view in time of peace. Each commodity has to be given a certain measure of priority; and, I think, it has been proved that the methods of ensuring a remunerative price to our agricultural producers must vary with each separate commodity. Therefore, while many of us feel that the Government have not gone as fast as we should wish, we do think that they are going slowly in the right direction; whereas I was afraid when listening to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that if he were appointed Minister of Agriculture he would go very fast indeed, but in the wrong direction.
We have found in the case of wheat that a guaranteed price has afforded an adequate solution of the problem, but it has been possible only because of the limited amount we can grow in relation to our total requirements. The beef subsidy has also proved effective up to date, and the guaranteed prices for oats and barley have undoubtedly put a bottom into the prices of these two commodities, although here we live to some extent under the threat of a price drop. It all proves, I think, that we must have a flexible national agricultural policy, that it is not a case for laying down rigid principles; but that, as I have said often in this House and out of it, it is quite right to tackle this problem through individual commodities.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and, indeed, the Minister, referred to the question of the control of imports and of quotas. I frankly regard quotas as a very unpleasant necessity. They do a lot of damage, and they are bad from the point of view of international trade, and I much prefer tariffs, which are much more flexible and can be varied to meet new conditions; but I do not see that we can get away from quotas now or are likely to be able to do so for many years to come. There is a school of thought which is always writing and talking about Empire policy, economic isolation, and all the rest of it, a school of thought which maintains that the wicked foreigner is the only person who is holding up British agriculture, and that if only we could deal solely with our own Empire and Dominions we could evolve a successful and remunera-


tive agricultural policy without any difficulty or trouble, under which everyone would benefit. To write and talk like that is not only sheer humbug but burkes most of the difficulties with which we are confronted; because it is absolute nonsense to say that the Dominions do not present a very considerable problem to British agriculture, and it is well that this fact should be faced by hon. Members on this side of the Committee as well as on the other, whatever the lads of the "Daily Express" may say.
In regard to mutton and lamb, I have some figures which show the imports from Empire and foreign sources in the Ottawa Standard Year, 1932, and in each succeeding calendar year. They show that the supplies come mainly from Empire countries, and have increased from 73 per cent. in the Ottawa Standard Year to 87 per cent. in 1937. Under the Ottawa Agreement foreign supplies are limited to 65 per cent. of those imported in the Ottawa year, and these do not seriously affect the position of the British producer. Dominion supplies come mainly from New Zealand and Australia. Imports from these two countries are regulated on a voluntary basis, and in 1937 they were about 1.6 above the quantity imported in the Ottawa Year; but, as I have pointed out, these imports increased from 73 per cent. in the Ottawa Standard Year to 87 per cent. in 1937. As hon. Members on both sides know, we have been going through a very serious crisis in the sheep industry in this country. I believe we shall get through it, and by emicable agreement with the Dominions, but to say that the Dominions are not the cause of the trouble, to say that we could solve this particular problem quite easily if only we could just eliminate the cursed foreigners, is a piece of sheer humbug which has to be exposed, and the sooner the better. We are going to have a difficult time, for a short period at any rate, in persuading the Dominions to adjust themselves to our requirements in regard to this sheep question which is urgent because prices have been simply catastrophic during the past six months; but we shall not get any nearer to a solution of the problem by pretending that it is not an Empire problem or that it does not exist.
Even in regard to beef, although I agree that the Argentine is by far our largest

supplier of foreign beef, tables which I got the other day show that imports of chilled and frozen beef from the Empire have been steadily going up, and although the Dominions supplies are relatively small, they have increased rapidly, especially the supplies of chilled beef, while foreign supplies have been reduced. For the third quarter of 1938 the allocation of imported chilled beef allows for an increase of 97,000 cwts., or about 4 per cent. above 1937 supplies, but imports from foreign countries, including the Argentine, have been maintained at the 1937 level, that is only 98 per cent. of the supplies of 1935. As regards frozen beef imports from the Dominions, they are estimated to increase by about 25 per cent. in the third quarter of this year. In the long run we shall therefore have a problem to work out with the Dominions in regard to beef as well as mutton. I believe we can do it; but we have to recognise that there is a problem here, and one which may increase; and I think we ought to have more continuous cooperation with the Dominions in regard to our imports of beef and mutton.
In dealing with the question of prices I wish to emphasise an aspect of agricultural policy which has not been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister or by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, but which is of fundamental importance, and that is, of course, the question of monetary policy, which is now largely controlled by the Government. If you examine the trend of agricultural prices in this country over the last 50 years you will find that they have sunk below the remunerative level quicker than any other group of commodity prices during every period of deflation, and even though we appointed the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs himself as Minister of Agriculture and gave him dictatorial powers, with absolute control over all imports into this country, if we were going through a period of deflation he could not possibly maintain a remunerative price level or a successful agricultural industry in this country. That is the reason why agriculture was so depressed during the period from 1921 to 1929. Even though large parts of the world were doing fairly well, agriculture remained more or less depressed, because in this country we were going through a period of continuous, though not very violent, deflation.
Deflation is deadly to agriculture. And I say to my right hon. Friend that he must encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue the policy of—to say inflation would be putting it too strongly, but at any rate the policy of expansion—which he seems to have adopted at the moment. If he does so, my right hon. Friend will no doubt have a tremendous success as Minister of Agriculture; but if the Chancellor deviates from that policy, if for one cause or another we go back into a deflationary phase during the next 12 months, nothing that my right hon. Friend can do can possibly save him from being a dismal failure as Minister of Agriculture. I mention this because it is a question which does not involve legislation but which does involve the fame and fortunes of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and with them the agricultural industry. We ought always to remind ourselves that, whatever specific measures or remedies we may apply to individual agricultural commodities, the industry as a whole must stand or fall by whether we are in a period of deflation or in a period of rising commodity prices.
I should like to repeat before I sit down what I said when the Minister was out of the House, that I still feel that the problem of distribution has never been adequately tackled by any Government in this country, and that it is a problem which has to be tackled. There are certain vested interests which are very powerful, but which, if they are allowed to exercise practically monopolistic powers in this country, should be required by the Government to conform to certain standards. My right hon. Friend knows as well as I do the complete stranglehold the Vestey interests have upon the imports of beef into this country; and it extends beyond the bounds of imports. It extends very largely to Smithfield Market as a whole. I could tell my right hon. Friend of occasions when the Vestey man has telephoned from Smithfield to the marts in my constituency in Aberdeenshire to tell them exactly what the local price of beef was going to be. If that interest is to have such a control over beef prices in our markets as well as over the volume of imports into this country I do not say that it should be nationalised, but that my right hon. Friend should see that that control is exercised not only in the Vestey

interests but also in the national interests. I believe that my right hon. Friend could do it.
The same applies, only in a rather more modified way, to milk distribution. I do not feel that the problem of milk distribution has been solved by giving cheap milk to school children. I believe that my right hon. Friend has himself gone some way beyond that point. That is what I meant when I challenged the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs; he seemed to imply that we ought to spend a lot more money on fertilising the land, putting people on the land, and in capital developments of all kinds. My way of spending money, if we are to spend money on agriculture, would be to subsidise the consumer, and the poorest consumer, in this country, in order to stimulate demand—particularly the demand for home-grown food. If there is a gap to be filled between the poorest class of the community and the farmer who produces milk, let the Government concentrate upon how to fill that gap rather than on spending a lot of money upon land development. I believe that nutrition policy will increasingly engage the attention of the House in the years that lie immediately ahead.
If you give the farmer remunerative prices and increase the demand for homegrown food, people will go back to the land of their own accord instead of leaving it of their own accord as they do at the present day. My final word is simply that I hope my right hon. Friend, during the remainder of his tenure of office as Minister of Agriculture, will devote a great deal of time and attention to the question of distribution. The present Minister of Health tackled the question of production, and made some very valuable innovations and experiments; but the problem of distribution has not yet been tackled adequately in this country. It is time that it was.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who preceded me from these benches, must not be taken by hon. Members opposite to represent 100 per cent. of our views. I am not at all sure that I can accept his greatest witness, the Central Landowners' Association, on the subject of


agricultural expansion. We know something about their policy during the War. We know how they scooped the pool when they had the opportunity at that time, how they scooped the pool immediately after the War, and how many farmers in many parts of the country are suffering at this moment as a result of the gross exploitation indulged in by the Central Landowners' Association at that time.
The speech of the Minister was, as we all expected it would be, a very clear-cut review of the major activities of his Department, but as he ploughed his way through an endless mass of commodities and products I thought I detected behind his artificial optimism some despair of the result of the farmers' resentment of the Kettering speech. I am not at all sure, although he did his best, that the explanation by the right hon. Gentleman completely whittled away the apparently deadly effect of that speech. One thing which emerged from the right hon. Gentleman's statement was that, after planning for increased output of agricultural produce, he realised that that increase must come exceedingly slowly, because it was felt that the market would not be able to absorb the increased productivity at a reasonable price. I shall return to that point in a moment.
I would like to say a few words about the historical review given us by the right hon. Gentleman. The Minister hopped from 1913 to 1937; then he went back to 1930; he came forward to 1937; then he went back to 1931 and to the Agricultural Marketing Act passed by the Labour Government; and then he came forward to 1933. So he gave us a real historical review of the events of the past 25 years. In the last seven years no fewer than 33 Acts of Parliament dealing with agriculture have been passed. If it were possible to legislate an industry into prosperity the agricultural industry of this country would be the most prosperous industry in the world, but after 33 Acts of Parliament and endless regulations, commissions, and committees, and if we are to take the National Farmers' Union's own statements, the industry is still slipping backward and making no progress. The industry either cannot or dare not plan ahead and farmers are more uncomfortable than they were when the National Government took office in 1931.
It is true that the Government have dealt with sugar, but I have always been convinced that that was most wasteful and extravagant. While it may have been good for certain parts of the arable area, we must not forget that we have produced about £58,000,000 worth of sugar and have given about £60,000,000 to the industry by way of subsidy. We have actually given to the industry more than the total value of the sugar produced. If we look at this matter exclusively with regard to the labour provided—since the labourers must labour to obtain their wages, or be thrown back upon the Employment Exchanges—it may be that a human case can be made out, but, from the point of view of agriculture and the economy of this country, I am convinced that £60,000,000 could have been expended in many directions with far greater results for the agriculture of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to wheat. If you guarantee for any commodity a price drawn from the pockets of the consumer of that commodity, you stabilise the price for a long time, and that course is bound to produce an element of stability with regard to that commodity; but when I recall that the poorest families in the country, typified by the man and wife with the largest number of children and the smallest income, cannot afford to buy meat and other luxuries and have to buy large quantities of bread, it is clear that they are the biggest contributors to that subsidy. I am then not sure that I could not have found some much more equitable way than that of a direct subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman referred also to beef. To give £5,000,000 subsidy for the production of any commodity is bound to have a stabilising influence upon that commodity, and no one denies that that particular subsidy has had a stabilising influence upon beef. When one thinks in terms of bacon and remembers that we are now paying Denmark more for 6,250,000 cwts. than we previously paid for 11,000,000 cwts., it is clear that while you may do something to increase the output on bacon in this country the consumer of bacon pays a very heavy price for that advantage.
In any case, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, despite everything which has been done to deal with sugar, wheat, beef, bacon,


milk, oats, barley, fruit, vegetables, fertilisers and "Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all," the land is still going down to grass, there is a smaller acreage for most root crops and there are fewer labourers on the land. We may argue as to the extent to which machinery is responsible for the smaller number of labourers, but it is a fact that there are fewer workers on the land by some 65,000 than there were in 1931. Everybody knows that we have one of the finest climates in the world for certain commodities, and that we have the biggest and best potential market right on our doorstep, yet, judged on existing results, we cannot write down the National Government as having been an unqualified success from 1931, because from every conceivable point of view there is less rather than more security in agriculture to-day.
I saw in a newspaper—yesterday I think it was—the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister represented as flying away into eternity in a gliding machine, and the caption to the picture was: "In the clouds." It seemed to typify admirably the present Government. They have been in the clouds for too long, and sooner or later they will be made to face this agricultural problem and come back to earth. It is true that tariffs provide economic help here and there, that subsidies also are a temporary help, and that you may do something also by restrictions or quotas, but those easy methods of solving the problem are too easy and they are ineffective when they are taken over a period. I want this Committee to face right up to the problem this afternoon in the light of the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, by the Prime Minister at Kettering, and the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon. What is the problem confronting us? Stated simply it is: We have the finest climate in the world and we have a massive market right on our doorstep, and yet farmers tell us that on the whole they cannot make agriculture pay. Small output with high returns is to them the best of all possible business, but small output and high profit is not the best business from the national standpoint. It is obvious that we could grow more food if we desired to do so. The right hon. Gentleman said last year that if our grass lands were properly cared for we could bring 3,000,000 acres into productivity,

and that those 3,000,000 acres could feed 1,000,000 head of cattle. There is no doubt about our ability to produce more food if all the other conditions are favourable.
Before the farmer will grow more food he wants a guaranteed market and an economic price. I do not think that those two requests are altogether unreasonable, but they prompt other questions. The first is: Who is to determine or fix an economic price and, the economic price having been fixed, who is to determine what is efficient production? So far the Government have refused to look at those two problems. They have been wholly uninterested in them, but if they are prepared to fix an economic price based upon the data at their disposal and are prepared to determine what is efficient production, I would ask the further question: Who will buy the increased production at ordinary English prices? At the moment the average working-class consumer cannot buy the best British beef. As an acknowledgment of the truth of that statement the Government are paying £5,000,000 per annum to subsidise those who consume the best British beef. Assume that we tried to increase our beef output by 25 per cent., 50 per cent., or l00 per cent., who would buy the extra beef when produced? I believe we ought to produce more beef, mutton, lamb, milk, bacon, and all the rest of it, wherever we can, without adversely affecting the general standard of life of the people.
Suppose we produced more mutton and lamb than we are producing at the moment. We have already heard it said that sheep farmers are having a very terrible time this year. I would point out, by the way, that we are always aware when they are having a very bad season, but they never say anything to us when they have had four or five good seasons together. If we produce more of these commodities, who is going to buy them unless they are produced much more efficiently, the general all-round cost is reduced, and the prices are within the means of the ordinary working-class household? The right hon. Gentleman knows full well, and so does every Member of the House, that there is a wonderful potential market for liquid milk in this country, but we are sending to the factories 350,000,000 gallons that the people cannot afford to buy; and to


the extent that you increase output of milk you decrease the price paid to the farmer. In the Milk Board's review of its general operations at its annual meeting we are told that the slogan is, "Less milk, more money." Therefore, if we persuade the farmers to increase their output of milk, and that milk is not taken off the market by the liquid milk consumers, it must go to the factories at 6d. or 7d. a gallon instead of 7d. a quart in the form of liquid milk. Then what is the producer of that milk going to say? The simple fact is that if we do increase the output of agricultural commodities without making very definite arrangements to see that that increased output will be absorbed, at prices not uneconomic to the farmer, then automatically the price level is going to fall. There will be a demand for bigger subsidies or heavier restrictions of imports to maintain the price level. If that happens, you will only cut off the cheapest layer of consumers. You will not help the British producer, and the second stage may be actually worse than the first.
Now what is the explanation for this set of circumstances? It is exactly what the Minister had in his mind when he spoke this afternoon, what the Prime Minister had in his mind when he spoke at Kettering last Saturday week. They know that the spending power is not there, and that the workers cannot buy fresh British agricultural produce unless their spending power is increased. Therefore, any Conservative, Liberal, National Liberal or National Government agricultural policy must, in the nature of things, have a clear, definite relation to the known spending power of the workers in this country. And that is the true explanation of the Prime Minister's speech at Kettering. He knows that to increase our agricultural productivity is to knock the bottom out of the price level and to leave agriculture in a worse state than it was in before. I leave out of account altogether in my review the Dominions, the foreign importers and industrial exporters, and I am quite satisfied that the Government, knowing that agriculture very largely depends upon the spending power of the industrial population, have got to become much more active in future in increasing the wage level of industrial workers than they have been in the past.

Whether that is by the agency of directly increasing wages, reducing hours and absorbing more employés, and providing them with wages to spend on agricultural produce, I really do not mind. But I do know that the Government all the time are on the horns of the dilemma of spending power and agricultural productivity.
I agree that there is no simple solution of that problem, and to the extent that 380,000 farmers want to produce more agricultural produce and to make far better use of the land at their disposal, if they were to conduct a raging, tearing campaign throughout this country for higher wages for industrial workers, it would be the best thing the farmers could do. I would not say that they are the greatest enthusiasts for higher wages, but if they really understood the near relationship of their prosperity to the wages of industrial workers they might, with advantage to themselves, conduct such a campaign to get an all-round increase of industrial workers' wages. In the absence of that, we are driven back on to humdrum expedients, emergency and temporary policies, with no finality at all anywhere to be seen. Last year the Minister during his annual review made this statement:
A fair price for efficient production is an essential, and should be our goal. Secondly, we ought to direct our efforts to reducing costs—both very desirable things.
He might have added, also reducing the spread between consumer and producer. I want to know what the right hon. Gentleman is doing about those two important things?
Take, first of all, the question of reducing costs, or coupling that with efficient production. Now what can the right hon. Gentleman or the Government do in the way of reducing the cost of production or improving the efficiency of agriculture? They do not own the land. They have no control over the use of the land, and they have no power to insist upon good cultivation in any part of the country, not even when they have been paying subsidies for one commodity or another. They have no large or small demonstration farms in various parts of the country to set the tone and pace for efficient production and to provide themselves with a costing system. I hope the right hon. Gentleman when he comes


to reply later on to-night will tell us just what his Department have done, apart from their research and educational work, to reduce the cost of production and to determine what is efficient production in this country. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is a general lack of equipment and machinery, and that farm buildings throughout the country are hopelessly out of date. What have the Government done to improve efficiency in that direction? So far as we can see no steps have been taken during the past 12 months. Those platitudes of the right hon. Gentleman are useless unless some action follows them immediately.
Then about the spread between producer and consumer. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said we have not touched the fringe of the marketing problem, and he is perfectly correct. It is true we have marketing boards for potatoes, milk, hops, bacon—or we shall have one for bacon sooner or later—but so far as the real success of marketing is concerned, they have not touched the fringe of the problem. As far as I know, there are as many potato merchants to-day as there were when the Potato Marketing Board came into existence. The Potato Marketing Board is continuing to negotiate with the merchants for a set price for the producers and a set price for the merchants, and the consumer is paying more. The Milk Marketing Board agree as to what the price for the distributor and the price for the producer shall be, but we know there are just as many retailers in the milk industry to-day as there were when the board came into existence. The consumer is no nearer to the producer than he was five or six years since. Still there are six, eight or ten milkmen marching down one street, missing a door and hitting a door. So that the real problem of marketing in its best sense has not been touched at all. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman looks at United Dairies' profits, £600,000; Tate and Lyle's profits, —1,300,000; and Meadow Dairies' profits, £450,000; and the profits of scores of other firms who stand between the producer and the consumer, and when he thinks of the profits of the middleman and the depression among the producers, he will agree that there is still a good deal to do with regard to marketing if we are going to provide a bigger market for agricultural produce in this country.
Something was said in the Debate last year about credit facilities. I have a couple of cases here which indicate that something ought to be initiated by the Government if the farmer is ever going to escape from the auctioneers and the middlemen, the merchants and the hire-purchase schemers. Here is a case where a farmer—whether he is a good, bad, or indifferent farmer I cannot say—finds himself with an overdraft of £1,900 at the bank. They did not send him into the bankruptcy court immediately: they were too wise for that. They allowed him to work and slave for the next four or five years until he had paid into the bank £ 1,730, and then, the moment he had got within £170 of wiping off his adverse balance, the bank foreclosed and sent him into the bankruptcy court, and now that farmer is down and out.

Major Braithwaite: Which bank?

Mr. Williams: I will give the hon. Member the name. It is a bank that operates in a part of Nottinghamshire that is not very far from Nottingham itself. Here is a case of a hire-purchase bargain in which a dealer paid £24 10s. each for certain cattle. He sold them to a farmer for £34 on hire-purchase—20 per cent. down, 20 per cent. for accommodation and so on, and when insurance and other items had been added the farmer actually had to pay £40 each for cattle which had been bought for £24 10s, a head. That sort of thing, I understand, is taking place in all parts of the country, and nothing short of a complete survey of farmers' indebtedness will tell us the whole truth about the problem. If the right hon. Gentleman would go into that question, get for us the information we need, let us see exactly to what extent farmers are indebted to the banks, to auctioneers, middlemen, merchants, hire-purchase schemers and the rest, then perhaps a credit scheme could be drafted that might be of real value to agriculturists.
Finally, I want to say one or two words about those whom I regard as being most important in the agricultural industry. I refer, of course, to the workers and their wages. We have the richest country in the world—so we are frequently told—and yet the average wage for agricultural workers still is 34s. 6½d. a week—not enough to maintain bare physical efficiency. I have here one or two house-


wives' budgets, made out by themselves and sent along here. In each case the man had a wife and three children, and when their budgets are worked out they show that 20s. per week is spent on food—4s. per person, or 7d. per day for three good meals and a respectable supper. That is not really playing the game with the man who actually produces the food. In all these cases, with one exception, they buy tinned milk, because, apparently, although they are agricultural labourers, they cannot afford to buy fresh milk. In all these cases they buy margarine, because they cannot afford to buy best butter; in all these cases they buy the cheapest possible kind of food that is obtainable, because they cannot afford to buy anything better. I think it is a scandal that the very men who spend their lives on the farm, who tend the cattle and carry out every operation, should come out the worst in the scheme of things so far as wages are concerned.
An agricultural labourer who can lay a hedge and make it stock-proof, who can build a hayrick and make it rain-proof, who can help to manage the stock on the farm, who has a passing acquaintance with agricultural machinery, and who knows all the other odds and ends of agricultural work, is as useful and as valuable as any labourer in this country, and the House ought not to be content that he should receive a miserable 34s. 6½d. per week, which is his average wage. Nothing can replace a skilled labourer once we lose him, and it is the absence of rural amenities, the absence of decent housing conditions, the absence of decent homes for their wives, apart from the wages, that are driving the skilled agricultural labourers off the farms every day of the week.
As to the question of wage evasion, on Monday of this week I put down a question to the Minister of Agriculture calling his attention to a case where a wages inspector went down to a farm where three labourers were employed. Neither of those labourers had invited the inspector to come; he went there to do his duty by the Government; but almost immediately the farmer sacks every one of those three agricultural labourers. Each of them had a family, two of them fought in the last War, and yet, because a Ministry of Agriculture's inspector went to the farm, not at the invitation of the employés, all

these three men were sacked within a week. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell farmers of that kind that, if he has not the power at the moment to deal with them as they ought to be dealt with, he will not hesitate to take the necessary power and to make it a criminal offence to victimise men because his own Department insists upon the law in that particular being carried out.
There are 380,000 farmers in this country, 631,000 labourers, and 46,000,000 consumers, and I do not know that any of them are satisfied with the present position. Personally, I feel that we ought to be producing a far greater volume of English agricultural produce than we are producing at the moment, but I want to see the wages of the workpeople in the country large enough to enable them to buy that produce when it has been produced. It is the job of the Government, not always to have their minds in the City of London, but sometimes to allow their minds to flutter into the industrial avenues. I know of no English artisan, miner, mechanic, engineer or whatever he may be, who buys frozen mutton, frozen lamb, frozen beef, or frozen anything, if he can afford to buy the best British produce. They buy this cheap imported produce because they cannot afford to buy best British produce. Therefore, this Government, or some Government, at some time, sooner or later, will have to face up to this problem in a big, bold way, and I hope that the statesmanship called for for this purpose may even yet be discovered in the National Government, although I have seen no sign of it up to the present.

7.21 p.m.

Viscount Wolmer: We have listened to a very interesting speech, such as we always expect from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) whenever he addresses us, and I think that the House of Commons, in the Debate, has shown that it realises the seriousness of the agricultural situation. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and found myself in very hearty agreement with nearly all of it, but I should like to say right at the beginning, because I think it is necessary for all of us who speak this afternoon to make suggestions to the Government and criticisms of the Government,


that I admit straight away that the National Government has done far more for British agriculture than any of its predecessors; and I think that any hon. Member who speaks from this side of the Committee will do so with that premise always in mind.
We cannot, however, get away from the fact that the problem is very far from being solved. The figures quoted by the Minister in his interesting speech this afternoon are, after all, profoundly unsatisfactory. The population of this country has increased by over 5,000,000 since 1913; there are 5,000,000 more mouths to feed; and, as has been pointed out, the war risks to-day are infinitely greater than they were in 1914. And yet we are producing, practically speaking, very little more than we were producing in 1913. That is a situation to which we cannot be indifferent from the point of view of national safety. But to my mind the point of view of national physique and national health is just as important as that of national safety. The drift from the land continues. I was sorry to hear the Minister make light of that feature of the situation this afternoon; he dismissed it with some such phrase as "It is not the only criterion." Surely, it is one of the most important factors in the whole situation. How can we continue to be a healthy nation, a properly balanced nation, or a nation in a sound condition, when less than 5 per cent. of our population earn their livelihood by the land? Really, that is a sort of figure that ought to keep my right hon. Friend awake at night, instead of his dismissing it with an epigram, as he did.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: My Noble Friend has misinterpreted what I said. I was dealing with the figures of production, and I said that in my judgment it was a fallacy to relate the number of men employed on the land to the volume of food produced, the fact being that, although there were fewer men employed on the land, production has actually gone up. I regret as much as my Noble Friend or anyone else does the fact that there are not more men employed on the land. Our policy is designed to try to get them back by increasing the prosperity of the industry. I was merely speaking in a statistical sense when I pointed out that to say that fewer men employed on the

land means a decline in production is a fallacy.

Viscount Wolmer: I agree with that statement, and I am very glad to have my right hon. Friend's assurance that that is all he meant by that remark. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that mechanisation of farms ought not to mean any reduction in employment. Of course, one of the greatest examples of that is to be found in the Ford farms near Dagenham, which are very highly mechanised and which employ far more men per acre than any ordinary farm. I know, too, that on my own farm, where I have, as far as my capital resources allowed, carried out a very considerable degree of mechanisation, it certainly has not meant any reduction in my labour bill. Therefore, mechanisation ought to mean increased production, but not decreased employment. It is because the increase in production as compared with 1913 is so small, and because the decrease in employment is so great, that I think we must describe the situation as very serious.
Therefore, although I acknowledge to the full all that the Government have done, it is clear that they have not done enough. I would put it to my right hon. Friend in this way, that they have really tried to bridge a 12-foot stream with a 10-foot plank. It is no answer to those who criticise that policy to say that all who went before have had planks only seven feet long. The remedies brought forward, although in the right direction, are not sufficient to solve the problem, and the questions that the House of Commons has to answer in all seriousness are whether we want a prosperous agriculture; whether we want to develop agriculture in this country; whether we want to put more people on the land, or to keep on the land those who are already there? Listening to the speeches made in these Debates, one would say at once that all these questions were answered in the affirmative; they always are; but we all know perfectly well that none of these results can be achieved unless farmers are given a price for their produce which will enable them to farm at a profit. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) put the whole matter in a nutshell. It is no use shirking that issue; it all comes down to the question of price. If you can give a fair


price, you will get the food produced in this country, you will get a prosperous agriculture, more employment, and a drift back from the towns to the country.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that there ought to be no antagonism between the towns and the country in this respect; we are all in the same boat. I would say to those hon. Members opposite who cheered the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that, if they cheer him to-day, I very much hope that to-morrow, when the Government bring forward their next plan of giving the farmer a better price, they will not try to make political capital out of it. We have seen a great deal too much of that in the past.
With regard to what the hon. Member for Don Valley said about our spending power, I agree with him to a very large extent, but I would like to put to him this question: Does he suggest that our spending power in this country is inferior to the spending power of the German working man, or of the French working man? We all know that it is greatly superior. And yet Germany and France, and, in fact, all civilised countries in the world, have a far higher proportion of their populations working on the land than we have. Therefore, it is not merely a question of spending power.
As regards what the hon. Member said about marketing schemes, again I agree to a very large extent. Marketing schemes are excellent, and I have always been a strong supporter of them. But they will not solve the difficulty without the right price. I should very much like to hear an answer to this question from some hon. Member of the Socialist party during the Debate. I hope that some hon. Member representing the co-operative movement will speak, because the co-operatives are among the biggest farmers in the whole country. I do not know how many acres they are farming at present, but a few years ago they were farming over 60,000 acres; and they were making, and are continuing to make, colossal losses out of their farming activities. They are doing that with all the advantages of cheap buying, and selling in large quantities. There is no marketing scheme which could give to any body of

farmers such good marketing facilities as are enjoyed by the farms owned by the co-operative societies, yet they are running their farms year by year at a heavy loss. If that is so, how can marketing schemes by themselves solve the agricultural problem?
Two most successful pieces of legislation by the National Government in regard to agriculture—although they are different in their importance—to my mind are the Wheat Act and the hops scheme. The wheat policy has achieved its declared object with an absolute minimum of friction. We owe the adoption of that policy to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise). I would remind the Committee that when the policy was framed in its details, it was carefully framed so as to provide a certain average wheat acreage, and no more. I make this suggestion to the Government, because I do not want to criticise without offering suggestions. It would be easy to alter the balance arranged under the Wheat Act scheme so that in fact a very much greater acreage could be brought under wheat. That could be done with the existing machinery. Possibly it might require further legislation—I do not know—but it could be done with very little friction, and it would at once bring more employment on the land and be a very great help to agriculture. I believe the wheat acreage of this country could be doubled, with great advantage to the safety and the welfare of the country, and at a cost which would not be felt more than the cost of the present system.
Another question I would like to ask. Why cannot the principle of the Wheat Act be increasingly extended to meat? I think the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in that connection were very significant. Why should not we increasingly make foreign meat pay a levy to assist in the production of meat in this country? It is only by similar methods that you are going to increase production, increase employment on the land, and bring about agricultural prosperity. The hops scheme is a very small example, but a very successful scheme. That has been conducted on the principle of having an agreed price between the consumer and the producer. It has been easy in this case, because the consumers are organised. You have there an agreed


price and an agreed quantity. It has been proved possible to fix that every year, with the result that you have eliminated the whole of the glut waste and you have been able to pay the growers a fair price, which has been remunerative to the efficient farmer, and to supply hops to the brewers at a price that is fair. That policy also is capable of development. It could be developed and extended in a good many branches of the fruit industry, but not without energetic Government action. I do not believe you will get the farmers themselves putting up another marketing board at the present moment, because they consider they have been let down over the Milk Board and the Pigs Board. I do not know anything about the Pigs Board, because I am not a pig producer myself, but I am a milk producer, and I say definitely that the Milk Board have never had a fair deal. They have never had the same protection as is given to the Potato Board or the Hops Board.
In that connection, I would like to take up a point made by other hon. Members in regard to the Dominions. I cannot see why there should be any friction with the Dominions on this matter. The Dominions have never contested the rightness or the propriety of our giving a preference to our own producers first, before we think of the Empire. That is what they do themselves. They give us preference over the foreigner, but they give their own producers preference over us. That is the principle of Imperial Preference. All that we are asking is that you apply the same principle to agriculture here. If you did, it would make milk production profitable. You will never solve the agricultural problem until you have done for poultry, meat, milk and fruit, what is done for potatoes and hops—that is, to give them a fair price, at which they can produce at a reasonable profit and employ their labour to the full. If you do that you will get all the agricultural produce in this country that the land is capable of producing, and you will be taking one of the most effective measures that can be taken to safeguard this country. It is merely a question of whether you are prepared to pay the price.
I would like to draw attention to what the Labour Government of New Zealand have done for their farmers. The New Zealand farmers are dependent on an ex-

port trade. The Government of New Zealand have guaranteed them a price which makes it possible for them to carry on. It is only by that method that the industry can be supported here. Every other country in Europe has guaranteed prices in one form or another for its agriculture. I think that no other country in the world has neglected its agriculture in the way we have in the last few years, and although I know the Government have done a great deal, they have not done enough. If they would only do what is necessary, and produce the 12-foot plank to bridge the 12-foot stream, they would find public opinion in their favour.
While I am surveying agricultural problems as a whole, there is another matter which I must mention. There is no more effective assistance that the Government could give to agriculture than the redressing of the present inequitable and unscientific manner in which Death Duties are raised on agricultural land. You are spending large sums in subsidies, and doing what you can in this direction and another, and at the same time you are allowing the capital resources of agriculture in England to be eaten away by a system which is unscientific and unjust. It is unscientific and unjust because landowners are taxed on a theoretical value of the land which they can never realise as long as it is devoted to agriculture It seems insane that, for £2,000,000 a year, you are allowing the capital to be drained out of agriculture. It is simply a question of the Government having the courage to do what it must realise is the right thing to remedy the evil. I think the Government have been too timid in this matter. They must, and do, know what is required to put agriculture on its feet and to restore prosperity to the land. I ask them to take their courage in both hands, and bring forward a policy which they believe to be adequate for the purpose. If they did, public opinion would rally to their side.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. de Rothschild: We have listened to a very interesting speech, in which the Noble Lord has praised the Government for their enterprise and diligence in looking after agriculture and, in the same breath, criticised them for their lack of courage in carrying out their policy. I do not propose to follow him on that


line. I would like to restrict myself to one aspect of the agricultural problem, which I consider at the present time to be of the utmost importance. Many hon. Members will remember a very interesting letter which appeared in the "Times" a few weeks ago, from Sir Daniel Hall, in which he pointed out some of the things that have been pointed out in this Debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), and which have been conceded by the Minister, namely, the number of acres that have gone out of cultivation and the sore straits which much of the agricultural grass land of this country is in. Sir Daniel Hall puts forward a large and embracing scheme, which can be summed up as nationalisation under a Government corporation of a large part of our agricultural reserves. This was turned down by the Government, in answer to a question put a few days ago in the House of Commons.
I notice that Sir Daniel Hall, amongst other reasons which he adduced for this means of improving our grass land, and also our arable land, adduced the lack of capital of the farmers of this country. It is mainly on that point that I wish to dwell on this occasion. Sir Daniel Hall emphasised the handicap which was imposed on so many of the efficient farmers because of their lack of capital, and especially as this affected the younger people who went into farming without any capital at all. Many other agricultural authorities support this point of view. Many members of the National Farmers' Union have often written on the subject. They all agree that a sound credit scheme is necessary, in order to increase the efficiency of the industry and enable it to take advantage of the results of science and education. Since the War two credit Acts have been passed in order to encourage investments in the agricultural industry. The first is the Act of 1922. That Act, as the Committee will remember, was a dead letter from the outset. It was based on co-operation, and, although co-operation is beginning to take hold of the agricultural community now, in those days co-operation was anathema, and the Act failed. In 1928 another Agricultural Credits Act was brought in. Its purpose

was to enable agriculture to obtain long-and short-term credits on a sound basis. I will deal first with the provision for long-term credits. These, according to the Act, were to be obtained by the mortgage of land and fixed assets with the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation which was founded at that time. In this corporation the Government participated to the extent of £650,000, which was lent free of interest for 60 years.
These provisions for long-term credit have met with some success. We all appreciate the difficulties which may have faced the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, and I do not in any way wish to criticise its general administration and policy. In view of the financial interests which have been taken in it by the Government, I feel that a discussion of its achievements is well within the purview of this discussion. If one looks at the accounts of the Corporation, one finds that at the end of 1937 there had been advanced to farmers and agriculturists a sum of £12,500,000, and this was secured on land valued at £19,500,000 and extending over, roughly, 850,000 acres. That is a moderately successful record, and when I say "moderately," it is for two reasons. First, if we look at the total value of British agricultural production we find that, according to the statement which the Minister made to-day, it amounts to £250,000,000, and £12,500,000 compared with that is but a small sum. The second reason is that the Ministerial inquiry—and here I want to go back to 1926—into agricultural credits showed that at that time the joint stock companies had made advances in the form of mortgages on land and fixed assets totalling £26,000,000. Again, 412,500,000 is not a very remarkable figure in comparison with what the banks themselves lent, whether this be new money which has been advanced, or whether it is in substitution for bank advances.
There is another feature of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation which has struck me as rather peculiar and worthy of notice. The company still holds to-day £2,000,000 of available lending money, money which it cannot lend, and yet we all know that the industry is badly in need of capital. Will the Minister, or whoever replies to-night, explain this anomaly? Is it that the farmer is not attracted by the terms of the Agricultural


Mortgage Corporation, the interest which it requires of 4½ per cent., which is fixed over a period for repayment? Does the farmer still prefer the terms offered by the joint stock banks? I wonder whether the Corporation could not charge a lower rate of interest. It is a question which I have often been asked by many of my constituents, both farmers and fruit growers. The security that is offered is large. The Corporation advances £,15 per acre, and that is, taking into account all buildings as well, surely a very remarkable security. In order to show that this is so, let us look at the very high value that the ordinary money market puts on the security. The recent Stock Exchange quotation for the Corporation stock shows a yield of 3¾per cent.—only s per cent. more than on Government stock of the same period of life.
Taking the date of 23rd June last, I find that the 4 per cent. Funding Loan, which has the same life within a year, was quoted at an average of £113, with a yield of £3 3s. 3d., the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation debentures were quoted at £,118, with a yield of £,3 13s. 9d., and the 4½ per cent. debentures were quoted at £111, with a yield of £3 14s. 6d. It is probable, therefore, that the Corporation as it now stands, could borrow to-day at 3¾ per cent. It is well known that the Corporation carries a burden, and that burden is the long-term stocks which have been issued by the Corporation at 5 per cent. and 4½ per cent. But could not the finances of the Corporation also be revised in that respect, and would it not be possible to give the farmer the benefit of the easier money conditions which prevail to-day? When the Corporation was first set up it borrowed at 5 per cent. and lent at 5¼ per cent. It could borrow to-day, I believe, at 31£34 per cent., and could it not lend at 4 per cent.? Thus we would find that not only would the advances be increased, but the profits of the Corporation as well, and this might set off the loss which is involved at present in the 5 per cent. and the 4½ per cent, stock. It is easy to appreciate the difficulties which are involved, and I appreciate and realise that the Corporation has made some concessions to farmers who borrowed at 5 per cent. in the past and permitted a conversion lately to 4¼ per cent. So much for the long-term loans.
The farmers feel that with regard to the short-term credits the provisions of the 1928 Act have been a complete failure. The purpose of these provisions, the Committee will remember, was to enable farmers to obtain credit from joint stock banks and to mortgage stock and crops, whereas the long-term credit was placed upon land and buildings. The position previous to the Act was that there was only one way by which an effective charge could be created on the stock, and that was by a bill-of-sale. The bill-of-sale would then have to be registered, but it could be advertised, and thus the position of the borrower become known at large. The result was that the finger of his competitor was pointed at him and he therefore avoided this source of credit. The 1928 Act, when promulgated, tried to remedy the difficulty which was created by the publicity of the bill-of-sale. It provided that these mortgages of stock could be entered into only by the joint stock banks themselves, and, further, the Act provided that the mortgages were not to be entered in public registers. It provided for a special register to be set up at the Land Registry, and that could be inspected only on payment of a fee. Furthermore, there were to be no advertisements or publication of any documents.
Professor Orwin, who has studied this matter very deeply, has related the result of these provisions. He stated that in many cases what happened was that the banks took mortgages on farmers' chattels as security for money already advanced, and not as security for new money, and the result immediately was that the merchants who provided the farmer with seed or his implements employed their protection societies to inspect the register of mortgages, and they withdrew their credit from farmers and executed mortgages in favour of the banks. Professor Orwin concluded that the 1928 Act had made the farmers' short-term credit position not better, but worse, and he was supported in this by many agricultural authorities, such as Sir Christopher Tumor. To-day, the position of the industry is the same as it was before. It is largely dependent for its trading capital on the banks, and more especially on the merchants and dealers who allow credit. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley has painted a gloomy picture of the farmer harassed by the banks and by


the dealers. I will not dispute with him that there are many cases of hardship, but, on the whole, I believe, that the farmers will say that the majority of the banks and the merchants are sympathetic, but the position is unsatisfactory.
Let us look at the position where credit is obtained from merchants. There the farmer does not know how much the credit costs him altogether. He does not know how much he has paid for the credit, and often in this way obtains credit on very costly terms by paying much more for his goods. We all appreciate that the merchant himself has no security, whereas the bank has, but the merchant is quite likely to recall the money which is owing to him at any time, and this limits the freedom of the farmer to trade with whom he likes, to sell his stock when, where and at what price he chooses. As the result of all these disadvantages there is a widespread shortage of working capital, and this most seriously affects the efficiency of production throughout agriculture. It militates against good husbandry all round, especially on small farms and small holdings. The smallholder and the small farmer arc often unable to feed their stock properly and to keep it until maturity or until a good market is available. They must sell when they need cash, and this need is one of the root causes of the seasonal price fluctuations. Just as the shortage of capital plays a considerable part in the disorder of agricultural marketing, it also influences the production side of the industry. The farmer is often unable to buy adequate supplies of fertilisers, and the beneficent gift of basic slag made by the Government is not enough at the present time.
The shortage of capital further influences the choice of crops. The farmer is obliged to grow cash crops when good husbandry demands non-cash crops which would be consumed by stock on the farm to the advantage of the land. Sugar beet is a well-known example of this. This is a crop which is popular among small farmers and smallholders, but often it is not suitable. It requires very heavy work and depends in a great measure upon favourable weather conditions. The finances of the crop are attractive. The farmer gets the seed for the crop on credit from the factory. The price is fixed

beforehand and the farmer knows when he will be paid. This sometimes outweighs considerations of good farming, and the land is often impoverished by too frequent sugar-beet crops. The Ministry's Survey of 1927, the very useful Orange Book, disclosed this unsatisfactory condition and recognised it. The Act of 1928 was passed as a result of that survey. We find that the conditions which the Act was introduced to remedy still exist to-day. The Minister has been asked by other hon. Members of this House as well as by myself to institute a new inquiry. I have urged this matter of a Departmental Committee inquiry. The Minister has answered that he is discussing the matter with the National Farmers' Union and the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. It is a very complicated and difficult matter. The Minister can see that it is a difficult task, and if it is a complicated matter, surely, there is all the more reason for a full inquiry. It would enable him to canvass all possible methods for erecting a sound credit structure for agriculture in order that capital may be utilised as it is in all other industries.
What is chiefly needed is some agricultural equivalent of the joint stock bank financing in industry. Other countries have such machinery. Why cannot we do the same? If the land of this country is to be used to its best advantage we must give credit facilities, and those effective measures may well require some Government assistance, whether in the form of loan or Treasury guarantee. I suggest that this might well be justified, because the charge on the State would be small compared with the assistance which is being given to agriculture in many other ways. I also submit that it would be fundamentally sound to do this in agriculture, and certainly much sounder than in many other ways in which it has been put into practice. It would improve the efficiency of the industry all round and the productivity of the land would benefit. It would be widespread and equitable, much more so than the piecemeal methods adopted from time to time. It would help to a more profitable return for the farmer, not by increasing prices to the consumer but by reducing the cost of production.
May I say a few words on the speech of the Prime Minister at Kettering, which has been so much discussed to-day?


am not going into the question whether the Prime Minister has become a Free Trader. He conveyed the impression that home production can be expanded only by forcing up prices and by a policy of further restrictions on foreign trade. This he deprecates. But there is a vast potential market in this country for those things which our soil is well fitted to grow, and which our climate is pre-eminently fitted to produce. We know that this has been strikingly revealed of late by recent investigations into the standard of nourishment of the poor sections of the community. This market, however, cannot be made available to British agriculture by a policy of higher prices as advocated by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). A more effective policy would be the expansion of the market and more profitable cultivation by the reduction of the costs of production and distribution. Towards such a policy the creation of a sound credit system for agriculture could make a substantial contribution.

8.5 p.m.

Major Sir Ralph Glyn: As many hon. Members desire to take part in the Debate, I will confine my remarks to as brief a compass as possible. The interesting part of the Debate has been the clear evidence from all parts of the House that at last every party realises the plight of agriculture and wishes to do something to help it. I was rather disappointed with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, because although it was a good review of the past it did not give those of us who are interested and whose constituents are interested in agriculture, much immediate hope. I would ask my right hon. Friend when he replies whether he could not say some words of comfort in regard to the sheep trade. Those who know Scotland, the West of Scotland, and the sheep districts in England realise that the position is extremely serious, because not only has the price fallen for the meat but the wool situation is really desperate.
One aspect of the matter which is not indirectly connected with the defence schemes might be considered by the Minister as one of immediate policy, and that is whether something could be done to increase the amount of food storage available for home-produced mutton and lamb. There can be no doubt about it

that a great many men who call themselves butchers to-day are really fleshers. They do not do any butchering. They get their supplies from cold storage depots, and it is very handy for them to distribute. Moreover, they do not run the risk of large losses and, owing to the fact that we have now cheap refrigerators, which are excellent things in the butcher's shop, the urge is not to buy home-produced meat but definitely to get meat from overseas.
It is astonishing that the Ministry of Agriculture have never made any suggestion about doing something to tide over the difficulty in regard to the glut which is inevitable in certain districts at certain times of the year by providing cold storage for a far better product as chilled meat than is now obtainable. We are told that Canterbury lamb is the best in the world. That is because in New Zealand they have adopted a system of advertising and the use of a slogan. British agriculture has been sadly backward in realising the advantage of advertisement. If we advertised our products a little bit more we should find that when we went to the market to sell our products in competition with others we should get along a great deal better.
There are only 34,000,000 cubic feet of cold storage in this country, and a very large proportion of it is owned by the great combines, who are interested in importing into this country meat of every description from overseas. The meat goes into these big depots, it is transferred by motor lorry or by refrigerator cars on the railway to other centres and it is putting the ordinary butcher out of business to a great extent in the rural districts. The Government might consider how important it is to have a superfluity of cold storage; because if it is the case that some of the defence schemes include what is called the slaughter policy in order to save tonnage by not having to convey to these islands feedingstuff for cattle, which in the aggregate amount to a greater weight than the actual amount of meat that is eventually going to be eaten by human beings, that slaughter policy in an emergency would be grossly wasteful, because you would have nowhere to put the meat that you had accumulated through that slaughter policy. It is essential to have a survey of the existing cold storage and its location, and we ought to try to have it sited in such places as will


enable the glut to be spread out, and to give us what we want, not a high price but a guaranteed price, which would be of such a character as to enable the market to be extended so that more and more people in this country would be able to include British-produced meat in their daily diet.
We have to read the Riot Act, perhaps, rather severely to some of the importers of meat, because it is certain that the recent policy of the Government of New Zealand in giving the New Zealand farmer a guaranteed price has made for the far greater prosperity of the New Zealand producer than of the wretched producer in this country. If the motto of Ottawa was that the British farmer should come first, the Dominion farmer second and the foreigner third, there is a good chance for the Government to show that they believe in that doctrine and that they will do something to stop this great inflow which is ruining the British sheep districts. It has produced a situation, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) can corroborate, of such a serious character that it is very difficult to know what the next step can be to save these hard working men from extinction.
I hope the Minister of Agriculture will carry out the advice offered to him by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) and have an immediate survey made of the mortgage system and agricultural credits. I can substantiate nearly everything he said from my personal experience and that of my friends in Berkshire. Unless something of that sort is done soon we may have such a condition of things, such as land going to waste from lack of capital, that it will be almost impossible to pull it round. That is why I find myself in very cordial agreement with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who always makes a good speech on this subject. Without wishing to throw any bouquets to the other side of the House, I know of no hon. Member who seems to take so much trouble to ascertain facts and to put them over clearly as does my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley.
This is a matter so serious that it should not be one of party politics. It is so urgent and so vital for our future pros-

perity that the time has surely come when all of us should co-operate and do our best towards effecting a solution of the problem, We all of us wish well to that highly skilled man, the British agricultural labourer. We want to see him well paid and we want to see him better housed, and I have yet to meet the farmer who has not the same idea. With regard to the fanner who was quoted by an hon. Member, all I can say is that such a farmer ought to be hounded out of the Farmers' Union and out of the industry. I believe that it is the earnest desire of the farmers that we should not only retain the good men we have in agriculture but that we should make it attractive to others.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the serious difficulties that are now encountered by the flock masters in obtaining shepherds. On my own farm I have a man who is of the fourth generation of shepherds. He is the most highly skilled man I ever came across, and is greatly interested in his work. He has an inherited interest, which has come down to him from 1720, and he would be a fool who could not gain knowledge by talking to such a man and learning from him. What we want is to give a chance to these agricultural workers and those who employ them. It is no use making speeches, which sound either optimistic or pessimistic. We must have action and we must have it quick.
I was very disappointed with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, because as I have said it was an excellent review but it did not deal with those sides of agriculture which are so vital and which are so interbound with defence. The matter of food storage is surely something that is fairly simple. When I asked a question about it the other day, I was told that no information was available. The information had to be obtained eventually from outside sources. I should have thought that it was about time that the Government should know exactly, if they do not know it already, what is the available space in these frozen depots, and that they should see that some outside organisation, if it cannot be done direct, should be established so that we may obtain what we desire, and that is the best British food market, handled in as easy a way as it is to handle imported meat, and to ad-


vertise it, and see that it is sold as far as possible direct between the producer and the consumer, cutting out as far as we can a good many of those who want to make intervening profit.
Many a small farmer in many towns in England would have gone under long ago had there not been a butcher in the local village who knew his circumstances and would buy a beast now and again to help him but, and it will be a sad day if the association between the country butcher and those who occupy the land is swept away by great corporations that come down into those districts. That association is something for which we must work if we are to maintain British agriculture at a high level. There is not much time. We must not lose this opportunity of helping men who are the backbone of the greatest industry in this country.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin: I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on the latter part of his speech. The impression which the Minister made on me was that he was quite satisfied with the position and with what he has done. That is quite contrary to the impression which I receive from time to time when I meet my farmer friends. It seemed to me that the Minister was not only satisfied with what he had himself done, but was also highly satisfied with the speech which the Prime Minister made at Kettering last week. I heard from a farmer friend of mine that the weather was bad enough at the Royal Show at Cardiff last week, but that the Prime Minister's speech completely damped the ardour of everyone who had anything to do with the Royal Show. The best contribution which the Government could make towards solving the problems which confront agriculture is to increase the purchasing power of the workers. It is common knowledge that large masses of our people have to exist on low wages or low incomes, particularly is that the case when men have to live on their unemployment pay or on the means test.
I have been reading recently two pamphlets which have been produced by the university at Aberystwyth. They have been very carefully written after a close examination of the conditions in the Rhondda Valley. The first is headed

"Household Budgets in the Rhondda Valley," and the second "The Consumption of milk stuffs and meat stuffs in the Rhondda Valley." Just a reading of these two pamphlets is sufficient proof to show that where people have additional money to spend they spend a greater part of it on food. Many of my hon. Friends will agree with me that West Wales farmers were never better off than when the tinplate workers and the steel workers and the colliers of Glamorgan-shire were working full time. These workers are good buyers; they buy the best; they buy fresh meat and eggs; and if prosperity were to return to industry the farmers, too, would be prosperous. It seems to me the great difficulty is that no Government has settled exactly what part British agriculture shall play in the national economy, whether agriculture is to look after itself or whether they should really make it prosper. The National Government have come down between these two extremes and they have supported British agriculture just sufficiently to keep it alive.
I always watch the Minister of Agriculture when he uses the phrase "a balanced agriculture." With very great respect it seems to me to be complete nonsense. No one knows better than the Minister of Agriculture that what he calls a balanced agriculture is simply the result of a series of crises. Every time the Minister comes up against some difficult problem he rushes to deal with it. In the first place it was milk, then it was livestock, next potatoes, and yesterday it was poultry. It seems to me that a balanced agriculture is nothing but a series of jerks and spasms. In my opinion the farmers of this country should be left in no doubt at all that the industry is considered of great national importance and cannot under any circumstances be allowed to go into decay.
There is no royal road to bring prosperity to the industry. You will have to attack it from four or five different angles. For instance, a most important part could be played by the Board of Education in providing the right type of education for the countryside, in not reducing the level of the standard of education to the rural child. It seems to me also that the Minister of Health must play his part in providing the right type of good homes for the workers. Then also the Minister of


Labour has his part to play. To-morrow we are dealing with the question of holidays with pay. How ridiculous it would be to fix three consecutive days for agricultural workers while all other workers will be settled with seven. The War Office has its part to play in seeing that the land it takes for military purposes is not, as in the past, the best agricultural land. One man and one man alone is capable of giving direction and purpose to the activities of all these Ministers, and that is the Prime Minister. With great respect I do not think the present Prime Minister is the man for this job, neither from his background, his upbringing, or his outlook. He is a townsman. Let me read one sentence from his speech at Kettering:
If we were to grow at home all the food we need the first thing would be that we should ruin Empire and foreign countries who are dependent on our markets.
The logical consequence of that sentence is that it would be better for British agriculture to die because the less food we produce in this country the more certain it is that we shall not bring ruin to the Empire or to foreign countries. I would ask the Committee to consider how agriculture stands to-day. In spite of the review which the Minister gave us, no one in agriculture is satisfied with its present condition. We have heard a speech from the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) and from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who sit on different sides of the House, showing how utterly futile is the present policy of the Government in view of the possibility of war. The present policy of the Government is restriction of output. Let us consider three commodities—milk, potatoes and wheat. According to the White Paper, after a certain gallonage, the farmer produces milk at his own peril, and practically at his own cost. In the case of potatoes, clearly there is restriction. The acreage for wheat is clearly restricted.
I suggest to the Minister that, instead of this policy of restriction, there should be immediately a policy of expansion. In the case of potatoes, for example, last Sunday I was told by one of the greatest authorities on potatoes in this country that it is possible to produce a sort of potato which will give 14 tons to the acre.

In view of the great success of the experiment at Wisbech, why not come out with a policy of "Grow as many potatoes as you can" and repeat the experiment of Wisbech all over the country? The Government could not possibly lose money on potatoes. Similarly, in the case of milk, Mr. Foster, speaking at Nottingham on 21st May, said:
There should be a policy of increasing the production of food at home. It is the only safe way. The Government should co-operate with the producers of this country immediately to lay the foundations for increasing the cow population by another 1,000,000. It would provide a great deal of extra employment, enable our farms to be used to a point nearer to their maximum capacity, and would go a long way towards giving a sense of greater security.
There we have the head of the Milk Marketing Board urging the Government to see whether they cannot find some way of increasing the amount of milk that is produced. No hon. Member would suggest that if more milk were produced, and could be marketed properly, there would not be a market for it. I wish to support the appeal made to the Minister that there should be an increase in grassland. Is it not a shame that out of 4,500,000 acres of agricultural land in Wales, there are only 16,000 acres which are first class? The farmers know that if they were to produce potatoes, milk, wheat and other commodities to capacity, it would mean that they would all be heading for the bankruptcy court. Not long ago, the Glamorgan farmers met and discussed this question, and in sheer desperation it was suggested that the right arid proper policy for farmers to pursue was to decrease production by 10 per cent. That was a policy of sheer desperation. It seems to me that along with greater expansion, the necessary corollary is a guaranteed price.
Price is the centre and core of this problem. A guaranteed price was described in a pre-election pamphlet entitled "Guaranteed Prices: Why and How," by Mr. Walter Nash, M.P., now the Minister of Finance in New Zealand, in the following terms:
To stabilise the minimum income of the farmer so that he can get his working expenses and enjoy a standard of life related to the time, energy, skill and experience used by him in producing the commodity necessary for the balanced progress of the Dominion.
If that is possible—and it is, for it is an accomplished fact—in New Zealand under


a Labour Government, why cannot the Government come out with a broad, comprehensive policy? My criticism of the Minister of Agriculture is that he is too full of fear. He is not prepared to chance anything; he is not prepared to come out with something that will appeal to the imagination as well as to the pockets of the farmers. Now he has the chance. Let him say to the dairy farmers, "Produce as much milk as you can and we will see that you will not lose by it." Let him say to the people who grow potatoes, "Produce as many potatoes as you can and we will see that you will not lose by doing so." If the Government went in for a national policy of cheap food, the producers of that cheap food ought not to suffer. If the Government will give guaranteed prices for farm produce, then what happens to the food afterwards is a matter of complete indifference to the producers. If the Government were then to go in for a large experiment in the distressed areas, the farmers would be the first people to be delighted; but they cannot produce food and go on producing it at prices which are below the costs of production. For that reason, I hope that the Government will tell the farmers, and tell them straight, what they expect from them. Once they do that, I am certain they will have an answer to that call which will not only be useful in times of peace, but also in times of distress.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Drewe: I think the Debate has shown one thing, and that is that on all sides of the Committee there is a feeling that the time has come when British agriculture should be put on such a footing that the land can be used to its maximum capacity, that we should get back some of the men who have left the land, and that the industry should be put in a position in which it can pay those men the sort of wage which they are entitled to expect for their skill. I think that, generally, that has been shown to be the wish of the Committee. I particularly welcomed the statement in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in which he referred to the Empire Conference of Primary Producers which was recently held in Sydney. I had the privilege of being one of the members of the United Kingdom delegation, which was so brilliantly led by my hon. and gal-

lant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir R. Dorman-Smith). I am sure hon. Members regret that, owing to indisposition, my hon. and gallant Friend is unable to be here this evening to give an account of what happened at the conference; but I think that all those who were present will admit freely that it was due to his great ability and personality that we were able to achieve some measure of success at the conference.
I wish at the outset to put a question to 'my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. When he was referring to the conference, he used one word which caused me some anxiety. He said that in cases where action is desirable to secure stable conditions in the United Kingdom market, the Government would prefer that the responsibility for such action should be assumed by the producers. I was very anxious when I heard that word "prefer" because we feel that there is a real policy in the Sydney resolutions and I hope that my right hon. Friend when he replies will tell us that it is the intention of the Government to use this policy to the fullest extent and put it into operation at the earliest possible moment. The initiative for this Empire Conference came from the New South Wales Government. They invited Canada, all the Australian States, New Zealand, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, and the United Kingdom to take part. All those countries accepted the invitation with the exception of South Africa which was not in a position to send a delegation at that particular time.
The invitation to the United Kingdom came to the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales. It was felt by the Union that this was an opportunity which might never recur, of getting farmers in the Dominions to understand the importance of British agriculture and the fact that British agriculture was still this country's greatest industry and largest employer of labour. It was also felt that this was an opportunity to lay the foundations of a real Empire agricultural policy. I believe that the value of the purchasing power of primary producers is being more and more recognised in this country. The 1931 census here showed 1,353,000 persons engaged in agriculture. That figure unfortunately is falling each year. But if one considers the primary producers in this country, and in all the


Empire countries and in foreign countries like the Argentine and the Scandinavian countries, one must appreciate the fact that if something could be done to put that great mass of primary producers on a profit-making basis it would lay the foundations of a steady world trade. This was the objective we had in mind when we went to Sydney.
The Conference was certainly unique, and I believe will prove to be historic. It was the first Empire Conference of primary producers ever held. It came as a considerable shock to the Dominions producers to learn that we in this country employed more people in agriculture than were employed in agriculture in Canada and New Zealand put together, or indeed in Australia and New Zealand put together. I do not wish to go in great detail into the proceedings of the Conference. But I wish to say that as a result of our deliberations the Empire delegates were absolutely willing to give us an unqualified first place in our home market. That had been talked about for some time. It was first brought out at Ottawa and the delegates at Sydney believed that we already enjoyed first place in the home market. I think they honestly believed that because we had proximity to the market, with the advantage of being able to place fresh food on the market, that, in itself, gave us first place. We had to disabuse their minds of that idea. They now understand what we mean by first place and, as I say, are perfectly willing to give us that unqualified right.
Secondly, they agreed unanimously on the principle of setting up commodity councils, producer-controlled and producer-financed, to deal with various commodities such as mutton and lamb, dairy produce, pigs, apples and pears. As the conference went on it was realised by the delegates that in many commodities saturation point was being reached in this country if it had not already been reached. Further it was realised that there was a growing volume of public opinion in this country which wished for some expansion of British agriculture as a contribution to national Defence. I would emphasise that point. We put it to the accredited representatives of the Dominions at Sydney that in view of our immense expenditure on Defence, we felt that British agriculture

must play its part. Every one of the delegates agreed with us that that was our right, and indeed our duty. They were prepared to agree that we must expand in this country for Defence purposes even though it might mean some regulation of imports. It was further brought home to them that owing to the Government's fertility campaign, now in full swing, there must be some increase in the production of food in this country and that the grasslands campaign in particular must result in an increase of our cattle and sheep. They recognised the existence of these facts and they were willing to meet us. I think I can best give a picture of public opinion in Australia at the end of the conference by two extracts from the Press of that country. On the day after the conference had unanimously approved of the resolution, the following statement from Canberra was published in the "Sydney Morning Herald":
The Prime Minister, Mr. Lyons, commenting to-day on the decisions of the Empire Producers' Conference emphasised the importance of expanding foreign markets. 'If Australian primary industries are to expand,' he said, 'a wider and firmer footing must be attained in foreign markets.' He added that this was bound up with the forthcoming trade talks and he commended the conference for its appreciation of the importance of the question. Mr. Lyons promised that the recommendations of the conference would be carefully considered by the Commonwealth Government. Australia as a large producing country, he said, had to face the fact that the United Kingdom market had its limits and if there must be regulation of supplies, it was obviously better that the regulation should be voluntarily accomplished by the producers than that it should he established by official action in Great Britain. The Government therefore regarded the proposal to establish commodity councils as extremely important.
That was the view of the Prime Minister of Australia. More remarkable than that, however, was the expression of public opinion contained in a leading article in the "Sydney Daily Telegraph" on 6th March:
The British Empire Producers' Conference has made an important contribution towards the problem of marketing Empire primary products. It has unanimously agreed that a regulated market is essential and that regulation should be in the hands of expert councils, controlled and financed by producers. Only in that way can disastrous gluts be avoided, new markets opened up, and a balance struck between the buying and selling capacities of each of the Dominions. For the first time Empire producers have been able to come together to evolve a balanced marketing


policy. We have so long regarded the United Kingdom as the natural market for our primary products that we have tended to overlook two vital facts. One is that the British market is not capable of unlimited expansion. The other is that Britain herself is a large agricultural producer. She has £1,180,000,000 invested in home agriculture almost as much as her total investments in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Her primary industries are as important in her economy as our secondary industries are in ours. She can no more afford to import unlimited quantities of primary products than we can afford to buy her manufactures without restriction. And from the defence aspect, every ounce of food produced in Britain means so much less burden on wartime communications." 
That is a leading article, not from an English paper, but from an Australian paper, which I think reflected public opinion in Australia when that conference came to an end. I can claim that they thoroughly realise the position that we are faced with in this country. An impression that I think anybody who knows something of Australia and New Zealand is bound to form is that it is impossible for the United Kingdom market alone to absorb the whole of the surplus primary products of these great Dominion countries. Their main hope for expansion must lie, I think, in opening up foreign markets, but when we realise that these great countries lie in the Southern hemisphere, I believe that, taking into consideration the difference of climate here and there, it will be possible to regulate imports, having regard to our peak seasons. In that way we shall he able to get our markets protected in a reasonable way and, at the same time, to take the maximum amount of agricultural produce from the Dominions, which obviously is a thing that we all desire to do.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give the most careful and earnest consideration to the suggestion, which we put to the Dominion delegates out there, that when commercial agreements are being negotiated with foreign countries, this country and the Empire countries as a whole might be used as one unit for bargaining purposes. That, we found, was a view to which they themselves thoroughly subscribed, and I believe that if you could establish that principle of using this country and the Dominions as one unit for commercial purposes, you would have such a powerful weapon that you would be able to force a way into foreign markets which are at present closed to us and the Dominions.
The main recommendation of the Conference was to set up an Empire Council, producer - controlled and producer -financed, free from political interference, to follow the line of the Empire Beef Council, which works in connection with the International Beef Conference. The suggestion that we made was that any decisions, to be effective, must be unanimous; and, of course, there will be representatives of this country as well as of the Dominion countries on the council. We further put it to them that if we cannot get a unanimous decision, power must be left in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade to impose restrictions. That, of course, follows the present line of the Empire Beef Council, but in the statement which my right hon. Friend read out in his speech I did not hear any reference to that power being kept in the background in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade. I personally hope that it would not have to be used. I believe that if you were ready to get these commodity councils set up, when they had the whole position before them and the facts at their disposal, and when the necessary organisation had been set up in the Empire countries, it would probably work quite smoothly; but I maintain that you must have that power in reserve, and I would ask my right hon. Friend, when he comes to reply, to say whether he is willing to agree to that proposal as well. It had been my intention to say something about the way in which we considered that those commodity councils would actually be set up and function, but many other hon. Members want to speak, and so I will not refer to that now.
I believe there is a very keen desire in this country for some moderate expansion of British agriculture. There is certainly a desire that our land should be used to its fullest capacity and brought up to the highest pitch of production. I do not believe, from the experience that we had at this conference—at which there were no fewer than 30 different delegations representing Australian agriculture, two delegations representing New Zealand, two from Canada, one from Southern Rhodesia, and the one from this country—that there would be the slightest difficulty in this scheme working, even if it meant some fairly severe regulation when it is known that regulation is either for Defence purposes or for restoring the


fertility of our land and using it to its maximum capacity. We found out there that they appreciated the fact that it was our duty to see that our land is in a high state of fertility.
As I see the position, I believe there are only four possible courses open to Parliament in this connection. One is to do nothing at all, in which case the industry would die pretty rapidly; the second is to use the weapon of tariffs or import levies; and the third is some arbitrary restriction by the Government. I want to say, quite definitely, from my experience with Dominion farmers, that I do not believe that, whoever went out to the Dominions, you could ever get an agreement from them with regard to a tariff, an import levy, or an arbitrary restriction by the Board of Trade. I am sure you could not get their unanimous co-operation in either of those two lines of action. I do not believe that any British Government would force a tariff or an arbitrary restriction against our Dominion countries unless there was some co-operation with them, and I believe we should not get that co-operation. There is the fourth course, and that is in accord with the resolutions which were adopted unanimously at that conference. I believe that that is the course which is open to the Government and to this House to adopt, and I hope they will adopt it, because I believe that there we can get, quite willingly, a system of regulation of our market from Empire sources which will give the maximum amount of exports from the Dominion countries that is possible for this market, and will allow our industry to expand in its natural way and enable us to use our land to the utmost capacity.
That is why I was so very glad to hear my right hon. Friend make his announcement this afternoon. I want to ask him particularly to reply to those two questions, about the word "prefer," which caused some doubt in my mind whether he is going wholeheartedly ahead with this scheme, and the other is that it appears to us to be essential that there should be this reserve power in his hands or in the hands of the Board of Trade to impose regulations or restrictions in the event of there not being unanimous agreement from the other Empire countries. This is rather a fresh policy, which has not been brought before the

Committee or the House of Commons before, and I sincerely hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity of reading the report on this conference which has been issued by the National Farmers' Union, so that they can understand the whole of the business that we were trying to do out there. I believe that that puts in the hands of the Government an opportunity which they have never had before of doing something to regulate supplies from the Dominions, and when that is done, as it can be done if they are willing to do it, then, superimposed upon that, we can get, no doubt, arrangements with foreign countries by an international conference in the same way. I therefore appeal to my right hon. Friend to persuade the Government to take up this policy at the earliest possible moment, while the Dominion Governments are strongly in favour if it.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Price: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe) on his interesting speech, As one who, I understand, attended the conference in Sydney, he evidently speaks with considerable authority. The most valuable suggestion that came out of that conference was that which dealt with the creation of commodity boards. I thought I heard the hon. Member talk of them as producers' boards, on which only producers would be represented. That would be a weakness if that were the case. No doubt they will be modelled along the lines of the existing International Beef Conference which has been advising the Ministry in regard to the imports of beef. If we are to have commodity boards, and I think we should, they should be conceived on an altogether wider basis and should not include only producers. If they are to get that confidence which alone can make them a success, they must include representatives of the State and of the consumers in the countries where the products are to be sold. That is the weakness of any plan along the lines suggested by the Sydney Conference. We want something wider and something which would create greater confidence, because the success of a commodity board which would advise the Minister along the lines of controlling imports must depend on the confidence of all sections of the community.
I am not going to join with other Members in advising the Government to raise


agricultural production, not because I do not agree with what has been said, but because I feel that if I were to follow that line to its logical conclusion I should fall under the ban of the Chair by referring to legislation. I would like to say a word about the sheep position, because undoubtedly it is very serious. I would like the Committee to remember that the total imports of sheep products in the first six months have not increased over the first six months of last year. Therefore, I suggest that we shall not solve the difficulty which has arisen in the sheep industry by reducing our imports on a large scale. The more one looks into it, the more one is convinced that this is a more complicated question than that. The wool position has something to do with it. There has been a collapse in the wool market, partly owing to the war in the Far East, which has affected the sheep position as it has others. Last week-end I worked out a graph of the sheep which I had sold on Gloucester market during the last five years for each season from the autumn teg prices to the fat lamb prices in the spring. It seems that we have now gone back to the position in which we were in 1933–34. There has been a steady rise in sheep prices over recent years, but I fear that under present conditions of limited consuming power the number of sheep in the country has caused the crisis. We have reached the peak of the sheep curve and we have now lapsed to the previous position. The process is very uncomfortable and there will be serious losses among sheep farmers.
We are not going to solve this question by dealing with imports. I believe that the 4th June returns will show that the number of sheep in the country has gone up considerably. We do not want to see these serious fluctuations. I am afraid that one of the causes of this fall is the fact that the retail price of mutton has been higher in the last 12 months than was the case before, and that the consumer has not been buying mutton, or rather has not bought the increase which has come on the market, owing to the rise in the number of sheep in the country. If that is the case, it again proves, what I have always maintained, that the consumer in the last resort determines the success or otherwise of this section, as of any other section, of the agricultural industry. I cannot go into any details because it would involve legisla-

tion, but I maintain that the Government must look into this position still further and see what they can do to encourage the purchase of sheep products by increasing the buying power of the consumers, and what they can do also to regulate prices by commodity boards or whatever corporations can be formed for the purpose of stabilising prices and preventing these fluctuations. They are damaging to the farmers on the one hand and disconcerting to the consumers on the other.
I want to refer to the grants for land drainage which affect a portion of my constituency. I am glad to see that the grants have increased from £200,000 to £304,000. Like Oliver Twist, I am going to ask for more. Internal drainage boards in my constituency and in other parts of Gloucestershire have been in serious difficulties in the last six months. It has been found that the rateable values of their areas are not sufficient to enable them to carry out the work they need to do without a very heavy rate levied upon the occupiers. The land drainage rate has fallen as a serious hardship on the small occupiers in my constituency. The matter can be dealt with by the Minister in the shape of grants under the Agriculture Act, 1937, but, unfortunately, there is one serious difficulty.
In some of these districts in Gloucestershire, in the parts lying by the Severn, proper drainage operations cannot be carried out except in the summer. The Minister refused to give grants except during the winter, on the ground that that might lead to drawing agricultural labour away from the farms at a time when labour was wanted in the hay-making and harvesting. That means, in effect, that nothing can be done, because it is useless to attempt draining operations during the winter on the lands lying near the Severn. The matter has been considered by the National Farmers' Union and other bodies in Gloucestershire, and it is generally felt that it ought to be capable of an arrangement. Is it not possible for labour to be obtained from the Special Areas or distressed areas, or even to get local labour prior to the hay-making, say in May? By a little adjustment these difficulties could be met and a lot could be done.
I will pass now to Section H.I, dealing with the Diseases of Animals grant. I


am glad to see that the grant has risen from over £600,000 to over £800,000. We all know of the serious losses due to cattle diseases, and I am convinced that as a result of these losses the cost of milk and beef production, especially milk, has been considerably raised. The bulk of the increase in the grant is applied to work in the eradication of tuberculosis, but there are other serious diseases, like mastitis and Johne's disease, which take a terrible toll of the dairy herds and, indirectly, raise the cost of production. If those diseases could be successfully dealt with, I am convinced that the costs of production could be brought down. I doubt, however, whether we are working quite on the right lines for the eradication of tuberculosis, which presents a very complex problem. The Ministry's scheme is to eliminate affected herds and to avoid contacts, but I am not sure whether action on those lines alone will solve the difficulty. In the "Farmer and Stock Breeder" a week or two ago a correspondent wrote:
One of my friends with a bit of spare cash on hand cleaned up his dairy herds to earn the extra pennies. His reward was of the kind that comes to the virtuous. Prior to this his losses resulting from tuberculin examination were never great. Now, after a clear year or two, there has been a breakdown, and nearly half the milking herd has been got rid of inside 12 months.
Unfortunately that is a common experience of those who are trying to eradicate tuberculosis from their herds. I think the reason for it is that we have been trying to raise the milk yield of our dairy herds, and I am very much afraid that owing to the fact that we have not considered health and stamina we have made our herds more liable to attacks of tuberculosis. After all, it is very difficult completely to eradicate contacts. It is amazing how disease seems to break out, without any contacts at all, in a self-contained herd. I believe that other animals are the cause.

Mr. Macquisten: Rabbits.

Mr. Price: Rabbits, rats and birds; rabbits particularly—birds are not altogether free from suspicion—and certainly rats. It is very difficult to keep herds altogether free from contacts, and we have to consider other factors. In scientific investigations we always find that as soon as one problem is solved another problem comes

along. The real question which the Ministry have not yet faced is the problem of trying to create a strain of cattle which will be constitutionally resistant to tuberculosis. I am very much afraid that a nemesis has overtaken our farming community by reason of the fact that for many years we have been trying to breed high milk-yielding cattle and have neglected stamina and health. The poultry breeder has done the same thing in the poultry industry, helping to bring about the present state of affairs in that industry—only breeding for high egg yields and not considering health and stamina, and we see disease rampant.
I am interested personally in this matter, and only the other day I worked out the curve of the milk yield of my dairy herd over the last 10 years. The yield went up from a figure of 400 gallons of milk per cow in a full yielding year, 1933, to 700 gallons in 1937. I also looked up the losses from Johne's disease and reactions to the tuberculin test over the same period, and they have gone up from 7 per cent. to 28 per cent., so that I have suddenly realised that I have engaged in the work of Sisyphus and that my last position is no better than my first. In the eradication campaign we must consider something else besides the elimination of contacts. The report of the Agricultural Research Council which was issued a few days ago had an interesting section, on page 221, with reference to the eradication of tuberculosis:
Research work may be considered under two heads, the eradication of tuberculosis by tuberculin testing and the rearing of healthy stock, and then, thirdly, the producing of immunity by vaccination.
It seems to me that the rearing of healthy stock is the most important object of all, and I want to ask whether anything is being done by the Ministry on the estate which I understand they have in Berkshire, the Compton Estate, in the investigation of animal diseases. A good opportunity is presented there of laying the foundations of stock which will resist the tuberculosis germ. There is no doubt that animal breeders and biologists discover that there are certain strains in a species which resist certain diseases. That is even true of the human species, and it is certainly true of animals. We are confronted with one of the great problems of biologists, to find out how far the in-


herent characteristics of animals are dependent upon heredity and how far they are dependent upon environment.
We cannot eliminate tubercular trouble by considering environment alone, least of all by considering only one aspect of the environment problem, namely the abolition of contacts. There is another aspect which we must consider, and here I think the Government's programme of liming and slagging the land has made a certain contribution. I feel that we are producing milk on certain portions of our land in such a way as to impoverish the land in consequence, and that in that way we have been assisting the spread of certain diseases among our dairy herds. I noticed the "Times" Agricultural Correspondent said not so long ago, referring to the Leicestershire pastures, which are among the most famous of the fattening pastures of this country:
Local opinion is agreed that the fattening pastures deteriorate when required to carry milking cattle. For the good of Leicestershire grass land there are too many milk churns to be seen on the roadside.
I am glad to see that the land fertility programme has contributed, in the estimates which we are now considering, an increase of £1,250,000. But I am afraid of another aspect of the matter. Are the slag and the lime being well distributed over the face of the country? I am very much afraid that farmers are putting them on only their best land. They are no doubt right from their point of view, because only the best quality land will respond at first. The second-rate land does not respond nearly as well, and the law of diminishing returns comes into operation very quickly. The Government should endeavour to get a better distribution, even over the second-rate land. Where are we to be in time- of emergency if we are dependent only upon our first-quality land, and our second-rate land has deteriorated still further? The restoration of fertility to our pastures would be the best possible policy for the defence of the country in a time of emergency. It is unwise to imagine that it is a good thing to try to increase production of cereals for emergency. What we require in a time of emergency is livestock.
We shall, presumably, be able to keep the big seas, such as the Atlantic Ocean, open by our Navy, so that we can get our main cereals from America and Australia. What we shall require to build up here

for a time of emergency is a large livestock industry so that it can be used when that emergency comes as a reserve of food, and, if necessary, for meat. I am certain that that is a much better policy. Our livestock, which in time of peace is dependent up to one-quarter of its total requirements upon foreign feeding stuffs, would, in time of war, manage, if we had rejuvenated our pastures and improved them, with even less imported food. As a last resort we could begin to feed on them. I am sure that that is the wisest Defence plan and I am certain that the farming community, both farmers and agricultural labourers, would cooperate on those lines if the Government would make a serious attack upon the problem.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Russell: This House and the country generally have been indebted for many years to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for his frequent incursions into the realm of agriculture. To-day he has rendered a definite service to the community by delivering a speech with which he has helped this, Committee. He has pointed out some difficulties and some defects that exist, but he did not go so far as to say that the Government had done nothing for agriculture. As a matter of fact, anyone making such an assertion would have been far from the truth; but one of the most depressing things for a Minister of Agriculture, especially at this time, is to look over the wide area of effort made by the Government and to see how little is the effect it has bad and how many difficulties have still to be overcome. It is interesting to notice that many of the things which have been done by the National Government were suggested, in part at all events, by the right hon. Gentleman himself, in those old and happy far-off days, and that by taking action along the lines which he suggested the Government have shown themselves truly national. They have been collecting thoughts from every part of the House and using them for the benefit of the country as a whole.
In many directions the work of the Government in regard to agriculture has been successful. It would be folly to say otherwise. It is surely the business of the Government and of this House to examine very carefully those aspects of


agriculture with which we are individually cognisant, and to find out, if we can, why the principles and the practice which the Government have initiated have failed. For a few moments I would like to look at one part of the field with which I am particularly familiar, and that is the vexed question of milk.
It would be infinitely wrong to say that during the last year or two the dairy farmer has not received more for his milk than he did five years ago. I could not have said that three years or even four years ago, but during the last two years there has been a definite improvement in the gross price which he has got for his milk. In spite of that, there are difficulties and substantial discontent to-day in the dairy industry. Why is there that discontent? The first cause is very simple. It is that every improvement in the gross price of milk has been offset by a substantial, and probably in most cases, a larger increase in the cost of production. Consider the case of feeding stuffs. The offals problem on a dairy farm and a pig and poultry farm are not as well understood by hon. Members as they should be. During the last fortnight I have been on two farms. On one farm were 250 cows in milk. On the same farm the annual output of pigs was between 2,000 and 3,000. The annual cost of offal was in the neighbourhood of f£6,000. Take another farm, with a milking stock of 120, a pig output of 600, and an offal consumption of £4,000. Now if you have an increase, as you have had, in offal prices over the last year or two of something in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent., you see at once that the increased cost of offals in the production of that milk or of that pig-meat is equivalent to about double the annual rent of the farm. That is a very serious condition on any farm. That is our first difficulty, and if I wanted to pick a hole in the Government policy as regards its effect on dairying I should point first to the cost of offals.
Now the question is, Could anything be done as to the cost of offals and also as to the difference between the cost of the offals and the price of the whole wheat as it goes from the farm? I want to say quite definitely that it has been within the power of the Government to give a very considerable relief to the dairy farmer, the pig farmer, and the poultry farmer on the

question of feeding stuffs. Had that been done the price he has got for his milk would have been of material advantage, instead of which things have been up to now practically left just where they were. Then, again, with every increase in gross price there has been a serious increase in administrative expenditure. At a farm where I was a few days ago the milk cheque came in. The gross amount of the milk was £85, but from that there was deducted a sum of £40 for expenses. The farmer, looking at it, got a shock; he gets a shock every month. What is the cause of that?

Mr. Hopkin: May I ask the hon. Member if he is aware that that £40 was not a deduction to the board in any sense of the word, but that the global sum was reduced because of the amount of money received by the board for manufactured milk, for which they are paid 5d. a gallon?

Mr. Russell: Well, it is a fact that the farmer gets only £45 when the gross amount stood at £80. I know that part of it is due to some of the milk going for manufacturing purposes. The thing is, how are you going to change that position? You have not only expenses, you have substantial costs for distribution, which at the other end make it so difficult for a consumer to get the amount of milk he ought to have because of its high price. The Milk Marketing Board advertises, "Drink more milk." I have heard the statement made from the Front Bench that we ought to be drinking a pint of milk a day. But how can that be done at the price which milk is at present? How can the working man and his family consider spending over 10s. a week on milk? That is a point which has yet to be dealt with. If you alter the proportion between the price of offals and the price of wheat, and if you substantially reduce the deductions from one cause or another from the gross price of milk, you will largely solve the problem of the dairy farmer at the present time.
Take another project—the standard of produce. The Government have done much to help. We have had the National Mark, we have had the weeding out of inefficient bulls, we have had research into diseases, and the accredited milk scheme has worked wonders in cowhouses. The industry has responded splendidly to


the appeal for clean milk, but there still remains in the country a very large number of cowhouses where clean milk is practically an impossibility. What is going to be done about that? My contention right through is for higher efficiency, and for such action as will lead to that higher efficiency. I went the other day into a shippen, and before going into it I noticed that the roof was not in good condition. When I got in it was raining, the rain was coming down through the roof and dripping down on to the beasts below. Does anybody suppose that efficient milk production can be brought about by those conditions? What is to be done to remedy them? The duty lies upon the rural district council, but the rural district council cannot operate because it often knows that it is quite impossible for either the owner of the house or the tenant to tackle this, but I do not believe it is beyond the wit of this House and of the Government to produce such a scheme as would enable those buildings to be put into an efficient and healthy condition.
There are some other things that need attending to. Perhaps one or two of them are rather outside the powers of the Ministry of Agriculture, but they are not outside the administrative powers of the Government. Members will realise that for half the year cows are milked practically in the dark. You have many a time seen in a shippen men having to milk 10 or 20 cows by the light of a storm lamp. You cannot expect clean milk under those conditions. You can only get those conditions right if you have on every dairy farm a full and efficient electricity supply. But, owing to the fact that in many cases the charges for electricity are high, it is not used, and the milk continues to be produced under inefficient conditions. Many of these matters, which may seem small in themselves, are vital to the industry. If we can produce confidence in the quality of the milk, we can increase the demand for milk. By increasing the demand, we shall also increase the supply, and that means that the dairy farmer will be given, not necessarily higher prices, but the opportunity of earning his profit from his increased production. I am sure that my hon. Friends opposite will agree with that contention.
We are often told that the farmer is continually grumbling, but he always has

something to grumble about. As has been stated here to-day, agriculture is our greatest industry. How do we treat it? We import about £50,000,000 worth of dairy produce every year. We import, roughly speaking, £3,000,000 worth of cotton goods, £50,000,000 worth of iron and steel, and £3,000,000 of woollen goods. I do not know what would happen in the way of grumbling at Bradford if that £3,000,000 were raised to £50,000,000. Surely the farmer has something to grumble about when he has to face these conditions. I submit that, when subsidies are given, they are not given actually to agriculture, but agriculture is used merely as the collector of the subsidies, which go to the industrial worker, who gets cheap food as a consequence. These subsidies are really given for the benefit of the industrial worker, who gets far higher wages and better conditions than the agricultural worker on the farm. Why should the agricultural worker have 35s. a week and bad conditions—

Mr. Gallacher: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: A great many other Members want to speak, and I cannot allow interruptions.

Mr. Russell: Why should the agricultural worker have 35s. a week and worse conditions of life than the industrial worker, or the worker on the roads, who gets, perhaps, £3 a week? We have to deal with this problem, and we can only deal with it by getting together and cooperating to face the difficulties, and so lift agriculture on to a better and more healthy plane.

9.40 P.m.

Mr. Riley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. R. J. Russell) will excuse me if I do not follow him into his dissertations about the agricultural industry. I want to address myself to two points, in the hope that I may receive some reply upon them. I noticed that the Minister, in his opening statement, emphasised that the agricultural policy of the Government is to improve the position of the farmer and of the worker. I think he repeated that statement at least twice, and I waited to hear what he would say with regard to the agricultural worker. Many speeches have been made dealing with the in-


dustry from the farmer's point of view, but I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman made no reference whatever to what the Ministry has in view with regard to a concrete and real improvement in the conditions of the agricultural worker.
The first point that I want to put is with regard to a class of agricultural workers who come under the jurisdiction of the agricultural wages committees, but who are engaged in a rather special branch of the industry. I refer to the workers employed in the Lea Valley, on the outskirts of London, in the highly intensive horticultural industry. In the Lea Valley there are several hundred workers in that industry, and they come, I believe, under three separate county agricultural committees. They are partly in Middlesex, partly in Hertfordshire, and partly in Essex. Their work is highly skilled; it consists in the intensive production of cucumbers, tomatoes and so on in hothouses. They live, not in agricultural villages, but in areas like Waltham Cross, Edmonton and so on, where the cost of living is very high, but their wages are governed by the ordinary agricultural wages committees' regulations.
For some considerable time they have been making applications to their respective county committees to try to induce the committees to regard their position as a special one. From the nature of the district in which they live, their house rent is very high, and many of them have to travel considerable distances by train, involving weekly costs of 5s. and 7s. 6d. So far, they have failed to get satisfaction from the agricultural committees. It is true that the employers are paying somewhat higher wages than are paid on the average to agricultural labourers in those counties, but their contention is that the industry in which they are engaged has been given very high protection by the Government, and that, therefore, they are entitled, apart from their expenses of living, to a different class of wage from that which obtains in an ordinary average agricultural area.
So far, they have failed; and I understand the reason is that they come within these three county areas, and the county committees have failed to agree on a policy, on the assumption that if they treat these workers on a different basis

from the ordinary agricultural workers those agricultural workers will have a grievance and claim the same rates of wages. Appeals have been made over and over again to the employers to receive a delegation from the trade union organisation to discuss the special position of these men, and these appeals have been turned down every time. I ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that the employers in this particular form of agriculture are enjoying from the Government very special advantages in the way of high protection against imported produce, the Government will not say to these employers that they must meet the reasonable demands of the men? I ask the Minister to take note of this, and, in view of the fact that the keynote of the Government's policy is to improve the position of the farmer and the worker, I suggest that that policy should be carried out.
My other point is as to what the Government are doing with regard to affording reasonable opportunities for displaced agricultural workers, and also unemployed workers from other industries, to settle down, in accordance with their capacities and their circumstances, on adequate small holdings, so that they may pursue a life of self-respect and usefulness, instead of idleness and hopelessness. As far as I can make out the smalholders' policy which was pursued years ago by the Government of that time seems to have gone into disuse altogether, and nothing is being done. We were told by Lord Addison, speaking in another place, yesterday—

The Deputy-Chairman: Hon. Members must not quote speeches made in another place unless they deal with Government policy.

Mr. Riley: Then I may remind hon. Members of what is perfectly well known, that, in spite of the many agricultural Acts which have been passed in recent years, agriculture is still in a somewhat stagnant condition, and the simple record shows that since 1921 about 200,000 agricultural workers have left the land, left the occupation in which they were born and brought up, because they could not get a living there. Besides that, we have a chronic state of unemployment among manual workers accustomed to work which has more or less a relationship to agriculture, who are year after


year going on without anything being done for them. It would be useful to give these agricultural workers who have left the land and the other unemployed workers a prospect of work. Why do the Government not come forward with some definite and useful policy? I recall that from 1908 to 1926, under two successive Acts of Parliament, something like 30,000 people were settled on smallholdings in this country, but since then very little has been done. Chronic unemployment has been with us, and land has gone out of cultivation. We have been told that land is less productive, it is going to grass instead of being arable and having its maximum production, yet the Government, apparently, are leaving it to a voluntary association to meet this problem of spreading useful labour throughout the country, to work on land, producing useful commodities.
This voluntary association in the course of four years has settled on holdings of an average of eight acres, 1,440 persons; and each holding has an adequate house, well built and well arranged. These are full-time holdings, employing a man and his family. The association has also settled on part-time holdings, 2,074 people. It is quite true that the Government are making a contribution to that work, through the Special Areas Commissioners, on a basis of £1 for each £1 provided by the association. But why do the Government not take the responsibility, and do it on a national scale? One does not suggest that millions can be settled, but there are thousands of men, between 40 and 45 years of age, who for four or five years have been idle and have been maintained through the national insurance system, who could have been employed in this way. The association has proved that it can spend £1,800 on fixing a family on eight acres with a good house, and that the only actual liability is something like £300. Have the Government given up the idea of extending this policy and giving these people a chance of settling down and being useful citizens?

9.55 P.m.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The Debate is nearing its end and we on these benches are grateful to the Liberal party for giving us an opportunity of discussing the agricultural position to-day. It is high time that such a general Debate took place. During this last year we have

discussed on more than one occasion our policy of rearmament, but we have not discussed nearly freely enough, until the Debate to-day, the position of agriculture either as a vital factor in our national life or as part of our national programme of Defence. Such a silence has been dangerous because it has given rise to the idea that all is well in agricultural circles. I gladly recognise, as I believe do the majority of reasonable farmers, the work and the help given by this Government and by the present Minister of Agriculture to tide British farming over a period of years when disaster might well have overwhelmed it. Yet it would be foolish to ignore that there is a general sense of uneasiness now making itself evident not only on the land but also in the minds of all those who are concerned with home Defence. We are not asking, and nobody has asked during the Debate, that farming in this country should be put upon a permanent war-time basis, but we are asking that our farms should be put into such a position that emergency production can be achieved with the least possible delay. That has been the object of much of the Government legislation during this last year, but the fact remains that the decline continues and that something more must be done if we are to put a stop to this deplorable state of affairs.
I hope that the Minister himself realises that we on these benches do not belittle the work which he and his predecessor have clone in past years. But the fault seems to be that agricultural legislation to-day is far too fragmentary. It is rather as if we were supplying odd sections in a jig-saw puzzle without having any clear vision or regard for the ultimate picture. To take only one example: There is the land fertility scheme, which is admirable as far as it goes, but it is in danger of not being used to the full by farmers so long as they have fear in their minds that if they produce more they may well defeat their own ends and knock the bottom out of their market. What is the basis of this fear? It has been mentioned by more than one speaker to-night. It is surely the ups and downs in producer's prices which are really keeping a stranglehold on both the Government's and the farmers' efforts. The one need in the countryside and in the towns to-day is for smoothness of supply and demand not so much drastic restriction but common-


sense regulation of imports from overseas, so that we may have no more of these sudden shipments which upset our markets and undermine confidence. We need a time-table, and unless a timetable can be agreed upon the present haphazard system of shipments will more than counter-balance the help that the Minister of Agriculture has already given.
But fortunately there is a new hope to-day, and that is why I for one attach so much importance to the results of the British Empire Producers' Conference at Sydney and why I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has given so warm a welcome to that report. I do not for a moment under-estimate what has been done by the Minister and by his predecessor in setting up machinery for the regulation of the beef industry, for example. But here is a united Empire report which is bound to strengthen the hand of the Government, if they accept the recommendations, not only in regard to beef, but to mutton and lamb, to poultry and eggs and all other commodities which are causing trouble and financial loss in our agricultural constituencies to-day. If the main object of the Sydney Conference—"to ensure maximum supplies to the consumer at the lowest possible prices consistent with a fair remuneration to the producer"—can be achieved, what does that mean to our agricultural industry at home as we see it to-day?
In June this year the index number of market prices stood at 124; last year it was 131. Even if we include the wheat and cattle subsidies the figure is only 129 this year, which is less than last year without subsidies. And what effect has this upon the number of agricultural workers for whom many hon. Members, and especially the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), spoke so eloquently quently to-day? Given a return for his produce which will cover his costs of production and leave a reasonable margin of profit, there is no right-thinking farmer I can assure the hon. Member for Don Valley, who does not wish to pay his workers a rate of wages equal in value to those paid to skilled workers in other trades and callings. He is as keen as anybody to recognise the proved skill of his workers, and to play his part to stop the drift from the land which is going on to-day.
I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I talk for a moment about my own constituency, because I think it is a fair example of what is happening in other parts of the country to-day. At the present time there is being brought into full working capacity near Hereford one of the biggest munition factories in the country, and here for the first time for a long period—for new factories have not come our way for many years—the people in the country villages have an opportunity of earning wages far in excess of those which are being paid on the farms. Can you blame them if they turn their backs, as they are doing to-day, on the life for which they have been bred and are seeking employment at that factory? But you have the unhappy position that while they seek employment in this one section of our rearmament programme, they are leaving a vital gap in the very industry which should be—and must be made to be—equally vital to our national Defence.
That is the tragedy of such a position. Here we are spending—and spending, alas, rightly under present international conditions—millions of pounds in the manufacture of weapons of destruction which are actually being made in my part of the world by men who should be developing our home resources to feed the people in the event of such an emergency. And why? Because we come back to the same fundamental trouble; the uncertainty in the minds of the farmers about their markets and a natural hesitancy to embark on a rate of wages which can, and will, keep men in agricultural occupations for which they and their families have been trained for generations. "What is the good," as that great Norfolk farmer the late Dr. Cloudesley-Brereton used to ask, "of being armed to the teeth if your molars have nothing to chew?"
Investment in agriculture to-day is a fundamental matter for the nation. The Government have it in their power to add to their already great record of help to the agricultural industry if they will only rise above this fragmentary legislation and make it clear to the agricultural community that they have in mind one vast plan into which all legislation is being co-ordinated to make the whole. That knowledge alone will banish uneasiness from the farmers' minds about their


markets, anxiety from the agricultural labourers' minds about their wages, and unrest from the mind of the nation itself about its preparedness to meet any emergency that may come.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hereford (Mr. Thomas) used the phrase that there was a general sense of uneasiness with regard to agriculture at the present time. I beg of the Minister, in so far as that uneasiness is expressed by farmers and farmers' organisations, not to suppose that it is the British farmer merely grumbling again. There is very widespread concern, and I think it has been reflected in the tone of the Debate by the raher remarkable absence of party feeling and the notable agreement on policy which has been pressed on the Minister from all sides of the Committee.
If I may refer again to the Prime Minister's Kettering speech, I would suggest that the widespread dismay which that speech caused was not so much over what the Prime Minister said as for the fact that it came at the end of a long series of disappointments for the agricultural community, and because of the negative attitude which it seemed to adopt. It came as the last straw to the agricultural community, which might have hoped from the activity of the Government to have derived some measure of prosperity; but I think I can show it is not in a better position than it was a few years ago. We are experiencing a period of considerable prosperity for many industries, boom conditions for some, but I do not think anybody would suggest that those conditions are reflected in the agricultural industry to-day. I do not think the agricultural industry is in a fit condition to stand the possibility of another recession of trade, as it is called. If a recession were to set in, the industry has not been able to build up strength or reserves to meet such a situation.
It is perfectly true that production has increased and that wholesale prices have risen in the last few years. Retail prices of foodstuffs have also risen, but the farmer is not better off as a result of that rise of wholesale prices. If I might quote some figures published in the National Farmers' Union news sheet recently, it is true that in 1936–37 the wholesale output

of agriculture appears to have been some £15,000,000 higher than in the preceding year. Judging from that fact one might assume that the farming community ought to be more satisfied, but in fact costs have gone up fully as much as that particular rise. I am glad to say that wages have risen a little, although they are miserably low even with that small rise. That accounts for £1,500,000. The largest part of the rise in costs is accounted for by feeding stuffs, which are 38 per cent. higher, and by the rise in fertilisers and equipment generally. It is estimated by the National Farmers' Union that the farmers paid about £10,000,000 more for imported feeding stuffs in 1937 than in 1936, and £16,000,000 more than in 1935. All these rises have wiped out any benefit which the farming community might have derived from the rise in wholesale prices.
Because of the negative attitude of the Prime Minister's speech farmers are beginning to realise that while they have been led to believe by leaders of the Government that their real hope of prosperity was in Protection, they have now been informed that they are to get no more. My own view, and I have expressed it before, is that the farming community of this country would be very unwise if they pinned their faith to Protection, and Protection alone, as the solution of their troubles. What is happening to-day is that the farming community is discovering that it has been deceived. While it would be unfair for the farming community to remain completely unprotected in a general protective system, tariffs, quotas and other restrictions are by no means the royal road or the easy road to prosperity.
The Government have been somewhat caught out in their own argument. They believed that Protection was the only way to help the agricultural industry, but they themselves have lost confidence in their ability to bring a certain stability and prosperity to the industry. The farmers themselves have not lost that confidence, but I believe there are other means by which the position of agriculture could be very greatly improved. The delay in introducing some of the legislation which has been promised has been a great disappointment to the farmers. I should like to quote from the "Farmer and Stockbreeder" in a recent issue:
Thus in a Session which promised to be of considerable importance to farmers, the


agricultural side is rapidly being faded out. The Essential Commodities and the Holidays Bill remain, but major agricultural problems take a back seat. Farmers are becoming increasingly restive under the delay in dealing with things.
The delay in introducing the Milk Bill has been a real discouragement. We have been promised a long-term milk policy not months but years, and it has been delayed again. This is a real discouragement to the agricultural industry. One sometinmes wonders whether the defeatism which is displayed by the Government in foreign affairs does not also find expression in their lack of confidence in their own agricultural policy. Restriction of imports in one form or another is not a satisfactory and sole basis for agricultural prosperity, because of the competition from the British Empire and the Dominions. I was very much interested in the Minister's reference to the conference which took place at Sydney recently, and to the statement by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe) with regard to that conference. I think it was the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) who pointed out that the present very serious position of the sheep industry is partly due, at any rate, to competition from the Dominions. For a long time past some of us have pointed out that the competition from the Empire was one of the reasons why the policy which relied mainly on restrictions could not be altogether effective. The Dominions have increased their share of the home market very considerably since Ottawa. Comparing 1936 with 1930 the share of the Dominions in beef has risen from 1o per cent. to 23 per cent., in lamb and mutton from 64 to 80 per cent., in butter from 45 to 53 per cent., in cheese from 87 to 90 per cent., and in bacon from 5 to 54 per cent. These are very substantial increases in the share of the Dominions in imports coming into this country.
Moreover, what is interesting is that if you examine the import situation the fact is revealed that as between 1933 and 1937 there has been a very considerable increase in the total quantities of foodstuffs imported into this country, and also the value of these imports per unit is proportionately higher. That I think is important, because it demonstrates the point which many of us have tried to impress

upon hon. Members opposite, that the agricultural depression of 1931–2–3 was due as much if not more to the reduced purchasing power which followed upon the increase of unemployment and the reduction in wages which then took place than to any increase in imports. In spite of the fact that imports have increased from the Empire and from foreign countries, speaking broadly, the wholesale prices of agricultural products are higher to-day than they were during that period. Consumption has increased, the demand has increased, so much as to increase the prices of these commodities. That is important to bear in mind.
May I return to the very interesting and valuable conference which took place at Sydney? If I may say so, I think the British members learned something interesting from our fellow farmers in the Empire. I believe that the British delegates went out to the conference with the idea that the sole solution of the problem was along the lines of reducing imports from the Empire and that some of the representatives of New Zealand and Australia suggested that that was a somewhat despairing attitude to adopt. May I quote one or two sentences which are reproduced in the interesting report made by the National Farmers' Union? It seems to be clear that some of the representatives believe there is another way out of the agricultural problem both for their farmers and for ours. For instance, Mr. T. H. Bath, of the Western Australian Wheat Pool, said:
If the conference takes the road of greater restrictions and a policy towards greater trade isolation of the British Empire, many of us here will live to rue our decision in bitter repentance.
Again, Mr. T. C. Brash, of the New Zealand Fruit Export Control Board, stated that a policy of restriction of foodstuffs was a policy of despair while there was still an unsatisfied demand for foodstuffs.

Mr. Drewe: The hon. Member will recognise that those statements were made at an early stage of the Conference before the whole case had been thoroughly understood, and he will further recognise that the resolutions that were finally adopted by the Conference were adopted unanimously.

Mr. Roberts: I am not suggesting that there was a deep division of opinion at


the Conference, but that in the early stage there was a considerable difference of emphasis as to the way in which the common problems of the agriculturists of the Empire could be met, and that perhaps some of the Dominions representatives laid more stress on the possibility of increasing consumption than the British representatives did. As to the resolutions, I have studied the original resolution which was submitted by the British delegation and the final one which was carried, and it seems to me that there are some differences between the two which are interesting and important. I do not wish to deal with that question further than to say that the policy which was adopted there seems to be an important new development. If it is entirely directed to a new form of voluntary control and restriction, I think it may be a very dangerous development for the consumers in this country and for the people of the Empire generally, but if the quotation which I have read to the Committee really represents an effective feeling among the producers that there is a vast market in this country which is not yet being met and which can be met by more efficient methods of distribution and marketing, by a more level supply of essential commodities, and perhaps by co-ordination in various ways, then that new development may be of real value. If, however, it is only a backdoor form of restriction, I am afraid it may lead to considerable difficulties.
I am glad that the initiative for that conference appears to have come from the British National Farmers' Union. I happen to be a member of the National Farmers' Union, and although I am not always entirely in agreement with everything that the Union say or with the whole of their policy, I believe it is desirable that all farmers should support their organisation. I am glad that the National Farmers' Union have taken the initiative in exploring this very important problem both here and in the Empire.
I would like to pursue this question of whether there is room in this country for an increased supply of British or Dominion products. Although the figures have often been quoted, I would again remind the Committee of the enormously increased consumption which would result if the working-class population of this country were able to afford the diet

recommended by experts who have studied the subject. If the population were drinking the optimum quantity of milk, there would require to be an increased production of 80 per cent. The corresponding figure in the case of butter is 41 per cent. and in the case of meat 21.9 per cent. It is not only the town population which is suffering from this lack of essential foodstuffs. Probably the deficiency is greatest in the rural communities in England. The Women's Institutes recently conducted a widespread inquiry into the activities of the Milk Board. From my experience, the restricted tendencies of the Milk Board and the artificial raising of prices, are more unpopular in the country districts than in any other part of England. In passing, I suggest that there is no real justification for maintaining an artificial price of milk in the villages of England, to the people who live on the very doorsteps, as it were, of the places where milk is produced.
I quote one example to show that deficiency in nutrition is greatest in the country districts. Of course, wages are lowest there, but to put it the other way round, I draw the attention of the Minister to an analysis which was reported upon in the "Cambridge Journal of Hygiene." According to this report, the diets of 51 per cent. of the urban population examined were found to be deficient, but the diets of 72 per cent. of the population in the neighbouring rural districts were found to be deficient. If I am right in thinking that the New Zealanders and Australians lay great emphasis on the fact that there is a vast unsupplied demand—unsupplied because the people concerned cannot afford to buy the product at the present level of prices—then I very much welcome their cooperation in trying to meet that very difficult problem. If it is to be met, let us face the issue which was put by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and realise that it can be met only by producing more cheaply. The Minister in his opening speech repeated the statement that the agricultural problem is a problem of price. It is not only a problem of price. It is also a problem of cost of production. We welcome the lime and basic slag policy because that increases fertility and reduces the cost of production and I deny that the cost of production need be


higher in this country than it is in the Dominions generally.
We are told that land is cheaper in the Dominions. Well, if it is too dear here, the landlord is getting too much, and something ought to be done about it. If transport is cheaper over the thousands of miles from the Empire, I ask the Government why they put every impediment in the way of the development of local transport and haulage within the country districts. I know of a man who sent a motor lorry 100 miles out of an agricultural district carrying wool to Bradford, and another motor lorry empty to Selby to bring back agricultural feeding stuffs. The two did the job which one could do if it were not for regulations under the Road Transport Act. There is no fundamental reason, I believe, why the British farmer cannot produce as cheaply as his Dominion competitor. There are reasons, but they are reasons which are capable of being removed. It is true that the Dominions subsidise their farmers, and in so far as they are subsidised, there is no reason why we should not meet those subsidies by subsidies ourselves or by other means, but I believe that if an energetic policy were adopted by the British Government for equipping British farms as well as they are equipped in many countries abroad—four-fifths of the farms in Germany are electrified, and in New Zealand and Denmark it is the exception to find a farm which is not electrified—much good would follow.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild), speaking from these benches, referred to the matter of credit, and I would suggest that the condition of the farm buildings and equipment of the agricultural community does not compare with that of many of our competitors on the Continent and elsewhere. Until these problems really are attacked, I shall not be content that the price level which the Government's policy attempts, somewhat unsuccessfully, to maintain is really attacking the main difference for the British farmer. It is not merely a problem of price; it is also a problem of the cost of production, and I am convinced that, given the same opportunities, the British farmer is capable of producing as cheaply as any other farmer with whom he may come into competition. I think the agricultural community—and when I say that I am referring to both

farm workers and farmers—are very ready at the present time for real leadership. They are prepared to look upon themselves as providing vital services, services not only vital in war time, but vital too in peace time. They are prepared, if they see that the Government are going to assist them in some of the ways that I have suggested very roughly, to recognise that they are providing an absolutely vital service. There is nothing that a good farmer detests to see more than land badly farmed. He is anxious to do his job well, and I believe that if some of the artificial and antiquated obstacles which stand in his way were removed, the British farmer and the British farm worker would get down to it and would be able to produce a larger quantity of foodstuffs and to provide Britain with what it needs fundamentally for a fit nation.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: We have had a very interesting discussion on an important topic, and for my part I welcome it because it is always interesting for a Minister to hear the advice of his friends in the House of Commons as to what should be done in given circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) seemed to think that there was some undue complacency on the part of the Government in their approach to this problem. I can assure him that there is nothing of the kind because we realise perfectly well how great a task has been laid upon us in our efforts to revive and restore this ancient industry. If we were complacent about it we should have done what was done by the pre-War Governments—nothing at all. The fact that we have seen that our duty lies in asking the House of Commons for an unprecedented amount of assistance for agriculture shows that we are not complacent; but anyone can see that our task is by no means accomplished and that it is a task which has to be followed with resolution until a much greater success than we have yet has been achieved.
At the same time, I should like to express my own opinion that while a great task of this character should never be approached in a spirit of complacency, it should not be approached in a spirit of panic and despair. You never get good work done under the influence of these


two mentally disturbing factors. There is great ground for encouragement in what has been achieved in a short time, and if we are to take it as an earnest of what can be done if we all work solidly together it should, I think, give us the encouragement which is creative of good efforts. I know of no subject of which it is more pleasant to speak than agriculture. It offers itself as a theme for some of the best speeches we have ever heard. The Committee would like me to express our congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs for the speech which he delivered this afternoon. Although I disagree with a great deal of it, I feel that as fellow Members of this House, we should like to congratulate him for its vigour. The right hon. Gentleman is an adept at speeches of that character. He has made a number of them. There was an admirable one, which I remember reading shortly after I was demobilised, delivered in Caxton Hall in October, 1919, in which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the necessity for a permanent policy for agriculture and said how vital the industry was. A year later, December, 1920, the Agriculture Act of that year was passed. It continued the Corn Production Acts with certain modifications. It provided that in order to give security the Corn Production Acts should not be repealed without four years' notice. Within eight months of the passing of that Act the Corn Production Acts were repealed owing to the excessive cost to the Exchequer of guaranteeing prices.
I am not proposing to pass judgment on the circumstances which compelled that decision at that time. I only use it as an illustration of one of the great dangers which I see in agricultural affairs. One's natural instinct is to do something in the big style. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) said that I was afraid of doing something of a striking character for the farmer.

Mr. Lloyd George: With regard to the repeal of the Corn Production Act, I accept full responsibility for that. I was Prime Minister at the time, and I cannot repudiate it. I think it was right at the time. It was proposed by two Conservative Ministers, the strongest speech for it was made by a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in a House in

winch there were 357 Conservative Members only five voted against it. There were seven Members of the party on these benches and only five Conservatives.

Mr. Morrison: As I said, I was not presuming to pass judgment on the motives which may or may not have rendered that action necessary, but I do point it out as an instance of the danger of going into an ambitious scheme like that and leading farmers to believe that their security was assured without having counted the cost in advance and being certain that it could be borne. I was speaking of it in its aspect of a warning. I do not say whether the right hon. Gentleman was right or wrong in what he did, but it is a warning to everyone against embarking on policies unless you are certain of being able to carry them through, because the long range of agricultural operations makes switches of that kind most harmful. I would sooner bear the appellation which the hon. Member for Carmarthen affixed to me of being afraid to do something of a striking character than have the reputation of seeking a little cheap popularity by proposing a policy which I was not convinced could be carried through steadily for the benefit of agriculture.
I think the right hon. Gentleman agreed with a good deal of our policy with respect to grass lands, but he said that a great deal of the grass was infertile and had been let down. Owing to the depression in agriculture no doubt that is true, but we are the first Government who have taken steps to correct the position. We have provided lime and slag for the campaign for the improvement of grassland in general, part of which is sustained by arable crops, for a rotation of arable crops is often the only way of getting really derelict grass land into cultivation again. It does not lie in the mouths of the party opposite below the Gangway, which has done nothing for our grass land, to attack us because we are taking steps to improve it. The neglect was theirs, the effort to improve it is ours, and I am well satisfied with that division of responsibility. The grass lands of this country are being improved.
The right hon. Gentleman read an extract from the "Times" newspaper. I was very much interested to see shortly afterwards a letter from another man, equally eminent in agricultural circles.


who said that in the course of his long experience he had never seen the pastures of this country better managed than during the last 12 months. That is a sign; and if I may express an opinion, I cannot believe that nearly £1,000,000 spent on lime and slag going on to the pastures of this country will not effect a permanent improvement to them.

Mr. Lloyd George: I proposed it in 1935 and it was rejected by the Government.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman proposed it in 1935; we have put it into effect in 1937. It is a case again of proposing on the one hand and of carrying into effect on the other hand, and again I am well satisfied with our part in that division. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of our position with regard to beef production in this country. He has given the Committee to believe that, owing to the amount of feeding stuffs now imported, beef production was really a sort of processing industry, but in truth the most important food for animals is grass, and that is not imported from abroad. He drew attention, as I did myself, to the decline in roots, which are low starch equivalent crops, but the actual fact is that the increase in animal feeding stuffs since before the War, measured on a starch-equivalent basis—because on any other basis you cannot compare roots with meal—is about 10 per cent., and it is my desire, and the desire of the Government, that our country should take advantage of the inducements to make itself more self-supporting in the matter of feeding stuffs for animals.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have drawn attention to the decline in arable acreage. I attempted to analyse some of the causes underlying that. My attention has been called to a speech given in the House of Commons in June, 1907, by the then hon. Member for Windsor, in which he drew attention to very much the same phenomenon as that to which the right hon. Gentleman referred to-day. He was reported as follows:
During the last 25 years these had been a reduction of some 30 per cent. or about 300,000 men employed in agricultural pursuits.
He went on to ascribe the depopulation to two causes, the introduction of agri-

cultural machinery and the change over from arable land to grassland and he asked the Government of the day to note that during the same years arable land had diminished by 3,000,000 acres. That might have been exactly the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made to-day, only the difference is that there was a Liberal Government in power with a very large majority.

Mr. Lloyd George: After 20 years of Tory Government.

Mr. Morrison: The difference between the two Governments is that this matter was drawn to the attention of the Government in 1907 and that that Government did absolutely nothing for agriculture, whereas it is our policy—I do not claim that that policy is perfection, but at any rate it is a policy—to make an honest attempt to solve the problems of agriculture one by one. In the matter of markets there is certainly room for great improvement, but we have done something. We have made a start. Here again we have made efforts to tackle the problem whereas the chaos, in so far as it exists, arises from the neglect in the past. The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the question of the reclamation of land. I agree with him that that is a very important matter. I saw an example of it recently. I went on a visit to inspect some of the works of a large character which are being undertaken by the Trent River Catchment Board inland in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. There I saw acre upon acre of black waterlogged land with the water table lying in the ditches about two or three inches below the surface of the soil, and that in a time of drought. I saw, after the works had been commenced, and where the water table had been sunk, that farmers were going on to that wilderness with their ploughs and were reclaiming that land. A little further on, where the process was a little more mature, I saw that land bearing rich crops of peas, beans and things of that sort. That work alone will reclaim some 40,000 acres of first-rate arable land. I would not like the Committee to be under the impression that we are not alive to what can be done in that direction or that we do not intend to pursue it.
Several hon. Members referred to the sheep situation, which is causing a very great deal of apprehension to everyone engaged in the industry. The factors are


many, but one is undoubtedly a fall in wool prices which is beyond the control of any Government. There was also the heavy lamb crop, coupled with the unseasonable drought this year, which has meant that farmers have put their sheep on to the markets because they could not see how to keep them. These are among the factors in the greatly increased marketings this season, which also affected the price. There are also many other factors in that. We are paying particular attention to the imports situation. The position is that the total imports in the first six months of the present year were over 100,000 cwts. less than in the corresponding period of 1937, and the prices of the imported product were good. Nevertheless, we must not neglect the influence which imports may have upon the situation. As I said before, discussions have been proceeding with the representatives of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand, and it is anticipated that the imports from those two Dominions during the current year will not exceed 5,500,000 cwts., which is some 400,000 cwts. below last year's allocation. We shall keep in close touch with this matter and see what we can do to prevent anything in the import field from jeopardising the situation.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) drew attention to several aspects of our agricultural policy, and to the effect which the increased spending power of our industrial population would have upon agricultural prosperity. With that sentiment I cordially agree, but I do claim that since 1931 there has been an increase in the purchasing power of our industrial population. Unemployment has diminished, employment has increased, and wages have on the whole shown an upward tendency; and in so far as measures for the general prosperity of the industrial community are concerned, the Government regard that not only as valuable in itself for the workers concerned in industry, but also as being valuable from the point of view of agriculture.

Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that rearmament is taking place for a temporary period, but what is going to happen afterwards?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman had better wait to a later stage; I am dealing now with agriculture, and he would not

expect me to launch into a wide subject like that at the present time. He also referred to the necessity of steps towards reducing the cost of production. I would draw his attention to two or three very important steps that have been taken, and in the first place to the campaign for the eradication of disease in our flocks and herds. By that we hope to reduce very considerably, if not entirely to eliminate, a loss of £14,000,000 a year from disease, which is a very high item in the cost of production. In the field of research and education we are pursuing actively every means of ascertaining processes which will assist in reducing the cost of production. As regards actual investigation into the matter, I can only say that work is now being done at Oxford on that matter—a very laborious task, but one that I hope will prove to be of interest when it is completed.
With regard to efficiency, every Measure that the Government has passed has laid stress upon efficiency, and that is a matter to which we pay a great deal of attention. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe) asked for an elucidation of what I had said about the Empire Producers' Conference. In the first place he asked me to elucidate my statement that the Government preferred that the responsibility for such action should be in the hands of the producers. The meaning of that is explained in the first part of the paragraph, in which I stated that the Government are in general agreement with the view that the orderly marketing of primary commodities is necessary and that we are prepared to use the method, when it can be achieved, of agreement by these commodity councils rather than to use the method of regulation ourselves. But his second point was as to whether we would take powers to deal with the matter ourselves, failing unanimity in the councils. The answer is that in any appropriate commodity in which we had an interest as producers in this country if we do not already possess the powers we should ask the House for them, because we intend to proceed on the basis of the livestock precedent, which has been successful, and because in the Livestock Industry Act powers are taken by the Government for that purpose.
The other matters raised were very numerous, but I should like to say, in conclusion, that the real object of the Government's policy is, as my right hon.


Friend the Prime Minister said the other day, to try to improve the state of agricultural prosperity, and by that means to bring relief to those who are in the industry and some prospect of a settled advance and expansion upon economic and permanent lines, rather than to seek some artificial inflation at the moment, which might have to be let down in the future with great loss. He went on to say:
The proper course, and the only permanent course, was to assist home agriculture by all possible means to develop along its own natural lines. This had been and would continue to be the agricultural policy of the Government, designed to restore prosperity to farmers and workers alike.
We believe that a prosperous agriculture is necessary if the land is to provide the livelihood that it should provide in time of peace for those engaged on it, and if it is to make the proper contribution that it may be called upon to make in time of emergency.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs asked me about emergency plans. I am not going to describe them in detail, because, as the Committee will appreciate, they have to be formed upon a number of hypotheses. The season of the year at which a war broke out would affect the plans, according to whether it were, say, the spring or the autumn; and the plans have to be framed for a number of other contingencies. But I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that, whereas during the Great War it was not until 1917 that the Government of that day thought that British agriculture ought to make a proper contribution and

then initiated plans for it, our plans have already been worked out. At the present time we have to do what we can to see that agriculture is made prosperous, to see that our fields are fertile and able to respond should an emergency come upon us. I believe that such a policy is sound in peace and the best possible preparation for war, should that happen, and I hope that the expansion of our agriculture will be of a permanent character, and not a mere flash in the pan in some particular emergency.

I understand that it will be convenient if I now give my hon. Friends below the Gangway opposite the opportunity of moving an Amendment if they desire to do so, and, therefore, I will conclude my remarks.

10.59 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I beg to move, to reduce the vote by £100.
I do not think that anyone will be satisfied with the Minister's speech, especially in view of the fact that most of it has been directed to saying what was done in 1906 and what is being done by the Government now. It must be remembered that we had an entirely different system in those days. Now we have tariffs and all that sort of thing. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman only shows the paucity of the programme and policy of His Majesty's Government.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,043,678, be granted for the said Service.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 24o.

Division 302.]
AYES.
 [11.0p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cocks, F. S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Collindridge, F.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Adamson, W. M.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Daggar, G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Ammon, C. G.
Dalton, H.
Grenfell, D. R.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Barr, J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Batey, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Bellenger, F. J.
Day, H.
Groves, T. E.


Benson, G.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)


Bevan, A.
Ede, J. C.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Broad, F. A.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Bromfield, W.
Evans, D.O. (Cardigan)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Foot, D. M.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Buehanan, G.
Frankel, D.
Hepworth, J.


Burke, W. A.
Gallacher, W.
Hicks, E. G.


Cape, T.
Gardner, B. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Charleton, H. C.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Holdsworth, H.


Chater, D.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Hopkin, D.


Cluse, W. S.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jagger, J.




Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Montague, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


John, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Muff, G.
Stephen, C.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Owen, Major G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
paling, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kelly, W. T.
Parker, J.
Thurtie, E.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pearson, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Kirkwood, D.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Tomlinson, G.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Poole, C. C.
Viant, S. P.


Lathan, G.
Price, M. P.
Walkden, A. G.


Lawson, J. J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Watkins, F.C.


Leach, W.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Watson, W. McL.


Leslie, J. R.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Welsh, J. C.


Logan, D. G.
Ridley, G.
Westwood, J.


Lunn, W.
Riley, B.
White, H. Graham


McEntee, V. La T.
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


McGovern, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


MacLaren, A.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Maclean, N.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Mander, G. le M.
Sexton, T. M.



Marshall, F.
Silverman, S. S
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mathers, G.
Simpson, F. B.
Sir Hugh Seely and Sir Percy


Messer, F.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Harris.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.'Col. G. J.
Cross, R. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hunloke, H. P.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hunter, T.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Culverwell, C.T
Hutchinson, G. C.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Davidson, Viscountess
Joel, D. J. B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Keeling, E. H.


Apsley, Lord
De Chair, S. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Aske, Sir R. W.
De la Bère, R.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kimball, L.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Donner, P. W.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Drewe, C.
Latham, Sir P.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Law, R. K. (Hull S.W.)


Beechman, N. A.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Duggan, H. J.
Lees-Jones, J.


Bernays, R. H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Liddall, W. S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ellis, Sir G.
Lipson, D. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Emery, J. F.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Boulton, W. W.
Emmotl, C. E. G. C.
Loftus. P. C.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lyons, A. M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Errington, E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Brass, Sir W.
Findlay, Sir E.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fleming, E. L.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Furness, S. N.
Maedonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
McKie, J. H.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Maomillan, H. (Stookton-on-Tees)


Bull, B. B.
Goldie, N. B.
Magnay, T.


Burghley Lord
Gower, Sir R. V.
Makins, Brigadler-General Sir Ernest


Burton Col. H. W.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Butcher, H. W.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Butler R A.
Granville, E. L.
Markham, S. F,


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Marsden, Commander A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitoham)


Cazalet Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Mitcheson, Sir G, G.


Christie, J. A.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hambro, A. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hannah, I. C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Haslam, Henry (Horneastle)
Munro, P.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nall, Sir J.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Heneage, Lieut.-Coloncl A. P.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfoik, N.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
O'Connor, Sir Terenee J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Holmes, J. S.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hopkinson, A.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peake, O.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hulbert, N. J.
Potherilk, M.







Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Scott, Lord William
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Selley, H. R.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Procter, Major H. A.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Ramsbotham, H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Ramsden, Sir E.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Touche, G. C.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Turton, R. H.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwish)
Wakefield, W. W.


Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Remer, J. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Spean, Brigadier-General E. L.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Spens. W. P.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Rowlands, G.
Storey, S.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Russell, Sir Alexander
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wise, A. R.


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Salmon, Sir I.
Tasker, Sir R. I.



Samuel, M. R. A.
Tate, Mavis C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Captain Hope and Mr. Grimston.

Original Question, again proposed.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

CYCLE BELLS AND DYNAMO LIGHTING EQUIPMENT FOR CYCLES.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, 1938, dated the twentieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twentieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, he approved.
This Order seeks to apply alternative specific duties on cycle bells, bell gongs, bell domes and dynamo lighting equipment for cycles. The object is to protect a well-established and efficient home industry against the abnormally low priced foreign competition to which it has been subjected in recent times. In the case of cycle bells there are British cycle bells made by a firm of world-wide reputation which for some years have been retailed at the price of 8d. and is. In recent years there has been a growing foreign competition from cycle bells retailed in this country at 6d., a price at which it is quite impossible for the home-produced article to be retailed. Conse-

quently, the home producer has been steadily losing ground. Japan and Germany are the principal sources of importation. Japan entered the market four or five years ago and made very rapid progress with a very cheap bell and cut out the German product. Germany then cut their prices and won back a substantial share of the market. It will be readily understood that this price competition between Germany and Japan reacted most unfavourably upon the British producer. The proposed new duty should place an old-established British industry upon a competitive basis and enable them to supply bells of tested quality at the lowest prices consistent with the maintenance of British industrial standards.
There is also a recommendation for the imposition of a duty upon bell gongs and bell domes. The object of this recommendation is to prevent the evasion of the duty that I have been discussing, by the importation of parts for assembly in this country. As regards dynamo lighting sets, we are here again concerned with Japanese competition. This form of lighting for bicycles has become increasingly popular in this country in recent times, but the British manufacturers have concentrated upon the rather more expensive type of set. It is evident that there is need for a cheap and reliable set. The Japanese product is cheap, but it has a questionable reliability, and the element of unreliability brings into discredit this form of lighting and affects adversely the better British product. What we want is a set which is reasonably cheap and reliable. The British industry have plans and have


installed plant for the production of a cheap and reliable set at 12s. 6d. and are hoping to start production in August. In both these cases we are concerned with competition of German and Japanese origin. In the case of Germany it is a question of price cutting, although we have no evidence of the methods by which the prices have been reduced. In the other case it is the competition of Oriental labour, which is just as serious for us. In view of these facts I hope the House will readily approve this Order.

Major Dower: Is not this another instance of Germany subsidising her exports?

Mr. Cross: I have no evidence on that point.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Paling: I am more concerned with the question of dynamos. I have always understood that the business of the Import Duties Committee was to give protection to British industries which find themselves in competition with cheap goods produced by cheap labour abroad. That may be the case in regard to cycle bells, but it cannot be the case with regard to dynamos. Dynamos which the ordinary cyclist would buy have never been manufactured in this country and are not manufactured now. That is admitted in the leaflet. The actual dynamo issued to cyclists costs between 145. and 27s. 6d., and the only competition has come from Switzerland, with a slightly dearer article, and from Germany with a slighly cheaper article, but not so much as to become unduly competitive. The competition, if it can be called competition, is now coming from Japan with a dynamo which is sold at 7s. to 10s., but it is an article which is in an entirely different class, a much inferior article, to the British article. The British manufacturers have never competed, and have never tried to compete with a dynamo suitable for thousands of cyclists. Now we are told that if we pass this duty, and give this protection, our manufacturers will consider making a dynamo to suit the market. I always thought that there had to be evidence of intense competition before they could hope to get a duty. Now, apparently, the duty is to come first.
It is rather curious that this should come at a time when there is the possibility of an enormous market being

created in the near future. A committee has been sitting on the question of cyclists on the roads, and I understand that they may have to have rear lamps on cycles. If that becomes law it means that every cycle will have to have an extra lamp, there will be a demand for some millions of lamps. There is likely to be a huge demand and these people who are seeking to provide for this huge demand are to have protection on the article before it is produced. It would have been much better if the manufacturers had done their best to create the article which is likely to be in much greater demand rather than to come to this House and ask for this protection before they have attempted to make the article which the cyclists will want. I hope we shall be told why there has been this change of policy. Why is the Import Duties Council granting this duty even before the industry has laid down the plant to manufacture the article? It is a bad change of policy. I think that some of the import duties that have been imposed previously have been unwarranted, and I am sure that this particular duty is absolutely unwarranted.

11.20 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I am glad that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) has called attention to the innovation which this Order represents. I think this is the first time that the Import Duties Advisory Committee have taken the step of recommending a duty before the actual commodity is on the market. It is clear from the report that had it not been for the foreign competition, the industry would not have attempted to produce a cheap article for which there is a very real and practical demand. It is true that cyclists in general have been suspicious of any requirement that they should do what all motorists are anxious they should do, that is to say, carry rear lights. The price of this article has been one of the reasons for that reluctance; it has been too expensive in the past. It is clear that if a cheap and reliable lamp were placed on the market, it would be a stimulus to cyclists to use it, even without legislation, for their own safety and the advantage of motorists.
I would like also to say that I am very glad that, as a result of criticism from this side of the House, the Import Duties Advisory Committee have given us a little more information, but still it is not


enough. More facts and figures ought to be given to us when we are asked to pass these Orders after 11 o'clock at night. We cannot shift our responsibility. After all, the Import Duties Advisory Committee is an advisory committee, and it has to advise not only the Treasury, but the House; and we cannot come to a really satisfactory decision on a matter of this sort unless we have complete facts and figures. My natural instinct is to oppose this sort of Order, but at a time such as this, when Japan is pursuing a policy of aggression, we do not want to see her receive any credits which will inevitably be used for making munitions with which to carry on her wicked war, and I have not the heart to oppose the Order.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Markham: I feel that there is very much strength in the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), but I would like the Minister to explain how it is that in this case no explanation has been given as to how Germany and Japan can produce the article at a price which is much lower than that at which it can be produced in this country, unless there is some suggestion of dumping, exchange currency juggling, or of sweated industry. If none of those three arguments can be advanced in this case, then the Import Duties Advisory Committee are embarking on an entirely new policy, and recommending tariffs when any foreign competitor can supply goods slightly cheaper than our own manufacturers. That is a very serious issue, and I should like to hear a further statement on it from the Minister.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I hope the Minister will tell the House who are the people who have promised to manufacture this particular product. We have a right to know who has undertaken that, if this Order is carried, and a protected market is given, they will erect a factory, find the skilled and semi-skilled men and the other labour for this work at this time, and will be able to manufacture these dynamos at the price mentioned earlier. Is this to be the policy of the Government, that some little coterie may come together and proceed to this Star Chamber and tell them "If you will see that we have an opportunity of engaging in this work and of

having a monopoly, so that we can charge the public what we like, with no conditions compelling us even to be reasonable employers, to pay reasonable wages, or give reasonable conditions to our work-people, then we in the trade will be able to share the profits made out of this "? The Government are now taking up this type, which is not the best type to be found in this country and can only engage in the work of electrical or mechanical engineering, provided that everybody else is kept away from it. I hope the Minister will tell us that he has not merely a regard for the pockets of the people, who think of little else, except their own pockets, but that he will also take some account of the workpeople so that they shall be adequately paid. [Interruption.] I know it will be a new thing for the party opposite to do that but I ask them to begin the good work of seeing that our people in this country are adequately paid for any work they undertake. Those of us who are engaged in these trades never expected in this matter of competing with others, this particular protection which has never advantaged the workpeople but only the pockets of the owners and manufacturers.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Cross: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) and the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) both criticised this Order on the ground that the duty was being imposed before production had been commenced and said that this was a breach of the existing practice in the imposition of additional duties. I call their attention to Section 3 of the Import Duties Act which says that the duties may be put on articles which are being produced or are likely within a reasonable time to be produced in the United Kingdom in quantities which are substantial in relation to United Kingdom consumption. It is clear from what I have already told the House that those conditions are being fully carried out in the case of the articles in question.
The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green also complained that full enough information was not given in the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The reason for that is that the figures are not available. In the case of dynamo lighting sets there are no official figures as to home production


or as to imports or exports. The great bulk of home production is carried out by three Birmingham firms, and if their output were given to the House it would enable any one of these firms to know what was the business of the other two, or indeed it would enable anyone acquainted with the trade to get a very clear idea of the business of each of these firms. For such reasons information of this kind has never been given up to now by the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
Again, in the case of the cycle bells the information is not available for the same reason. Information is not given as to the home production, although, of course, the Import Duties Advisory Committee are able to get it, and where imports are concerned cycle bells are not separately distinguished in the trade returns. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked me for the names of the firms that would make these lamps. They are three firms in Birmingham—Lucas, Miller, and Hill. He also said something about the Import Duties Advisory Committee not being concerned with the wages which will be paid in this industry at the time when the duty is put on. It is no part of the function of the Import Duties Advisory Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and I am very surprised to hear hon. Members opposite cheering that, for indeed, if it was their function it would mean on their part an incursion into a field which has hitherto been the preserve of the trade unions.

Mr. McEntee: What would be the objection on this side to the insertion of the Fair Wages Clause?

Mr. Cross: I can imagine a good many. If you did have this intervention in regard to wages in a particular industry, I can imagine a great many disadvantages. To take one, assume a case where the employers' organisation is wanting a reduction in wages. It would be a very convenient argument, no doubt, for hon. Members who represent trade unions to be able to say that the Import Duties Advisory Committee had given their blessing to the rate of wages which then obtained as being fair and that those wages ought not to be reduced. To take the reverse position, if the trade union desired to get an increase in wages, they would find themselves up against precisely the same argument from the em-

ployers, who would say the wages were fair and that there was no ground for an increase.

Mr. James Griffiths: I gather that the hon. Gentleman thinks it is not the function of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to inquire whether the firm that has asked for protection is paying fair wages. Does he think it right that a firm of that kind can go to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and say, "Please give us protection, because we have been undercut in the market by the Japanese and the Germans, who are paying sweated wages," without at the same time giving them a right to find out whether these people are paying reasonable wages themselves?

Mr. Cross: The reason for that is that this is the responsibility of the trade unions. Where the trade unions, for one reason or another, are not carrying out that responsibility, there is legislation under which trade boards are set up. I cannot agree that it is within the limits of the proper duties of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to intervene in that way.

Mr. Kelly: What trade board in the country covers the dynamo manufacturers?

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I do not rise to challenge the merits or otherwise of this Order, but I want to say a word or two after the statement of the hon. Gentleman in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) with regard to the supply of details to this House in order that hon. Members may form a judgment on the merits of such an Order. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it was impossible to give the House certain figures, as to do so would be to give away the business of individual firms. We are not asking for the particulars of the business of individual firms, but it seems to me to be a travesty to set up a committee to advise and make recommendations to the House of Commons, and to say that they shall be in receipt of full particulars in order to form a judgment as to the issue before them, and then to come to this House, which has the duty to form the final judgment, and ask us to confirm or reject the recommendations of the committee, without having the particulars on which the committee had


formed their opinion. I appeal to all sides of the House to realise that this is simply handing over the duty of this House to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. As a Member of the House who is asked to pass judgment on these Orders I demand to have the same material in front of me as the Advisory Committee has. This is another example of the way in which the House is handing over its powers to delegated bodies, and I protest against the argument that we cannot have the full particulars to enable us to form a judgment simply because it might divulge the particulars of certain businesses. I do not want that to be done, but we ought to have the figures of total production.

11.36 p. m.

Mr. McEntee: I have had a fairly long experience of the Fair Wages Clause, and it would be interesting if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what is the difference between the insertion of the clause in ordinary Government contracts and the insistence by the Import Duties Advisory Committee that the clause should be observed by those who receive the protection of a tariff. The principle is the same and the results would be the same. It is sheer nonsense to tell us that it might interfere with the work of trade unions. You might just as well tell us that the setting up of trade boards interfered with the work of trade unions in fighting for fair wages. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that there should be a constant dog fight between the unions and employers on the question of wages, and that would lead to chaos in industry. I hope that the Government will in future insist that the industries which are given protection should themselves give protection to their workers. I hope that the House will divide against this Order in spite of the fact that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has deserted the principles which he has held for all the years I have known him.

11.39 p. m.

Mr. Ede: I want to refer to a part of the report of the Advisory Committee which represents a departure from policy. On page 3 the report states:
The principal British manufacturers have informed us that they desire to put in hand the large scale production of cheap sets of good quality, provided the risks of their enterprise

are not enhanced by the importation of foreign-made sets, quantities of which have already appeared in this market, at prices out of all proportion to British costs.
The Parliamentary Secretary has been very frank with the House in giving the names of the firms concerned. I would like to ask how long they are to have in which to make good their desire to produce these articles behind the shelter of this tariff wall. Has any time been fixed? When will the Import Duties Advisory Committee consider the progress made and whether manufacturers have managed to place adequate supplies on the market? The House cannot be expected to erect a permanent tariff wall on this report, and there ought to be some understanding respecting the period during which manufacturers are to receive this advantage, and a clear intimation given to them that if they do not rise to the occasion the benefit will be withdrawn.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I had hoped that the replies of the Parliamentary Secretary to the questions addressed to him would have put the House in a position to give a judgment upon this Order; but in view of the vague character of the information in the White Paper and the failure of the Parliamentary Secretary to furnish the information which the House wishes to have I see no course open to us but to adjourn. We are discussing a matter of considerable public interest and some social importance. Since the War the cycle industry has occupied itself chiefly with catering for two classes—the working people who use bicycles to go to and from work, and school children who use them to go to school, in country districts often a journey of four or five miles. In view of the class of persons on whom the burden will fall, before we agree to a duty of 33⅓ per cent. we ought to feel thoroughly satisfied that the basis on which the application was put forward has been thoroughly examined. What are the facts which emerge from the White Paper and the very vague answers given by the Parliamentary Secretary? I am not blaming him specially; obviously he has given all the information which he is permitted to give by his Department. Again and again we have protested in the House against the lack of adequate information from the Advisory Committee in the White Papers. I admit


that in the case of the last two or three Orders we have had fuller information, but although the present White Paper is a rather long one, we are absolutely without the requisite information as to the state of the industry.
After the Debate has been adjourned, as I hope it will be, I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will obtain information on these specific points: First, what is the average number of cycles in use to which bells are attached in place of horns? The Board of Trade have the ordinary monthly trade information in addition to their census of production. Secondly, we ought to have the volume of imports and their value, which would give some idea of the yield of this 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem duty. Thirdly, we ought to know the financial position of the firms who are making this application for a duty on dynamo sets in advance of undertaking this actual type of production. When I heard the announcement that they were firms like Lucas, and Hills, of Birmingham, I felt very strongly, although I have not had a chance to leave the House and look at the Stock Exchange Year Book, that those firms certainly did not need additional protection to what they are already receiving in the motor car industry. Judging from the financial results of those firms and the very fine achievements of their shareholders, I should have thought that this House

would hesitate once, twice and thrice before putting specific and additional burdens upon the daily users of the workmen's cycles, in order to enhance those profits at a time when the firms are moving to new production to meet compulsory regulations that may be made upon cyclists under an order of this House. We ought not to be asked to come to any decision to-night until we have had that specific information.

The Parliamentary Secretary may be quite right when he says that wages regulation is not the function of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and that it is the prerogative of the trade unions to organise on a fair-wages basis; but he might have added that the Government have some responsibility to the Ministry of Labour. Surely if all the conditions attaching to the trade have to be brought before the Committee it is not impossible for the Committee to be asked to satisfy itself that any industry which is to be in receipt of high protection should give a guarantee to the Government that the Fair-Wages Clause shall be observed, in regard to the labour that is employed. I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 146.

Division No. 303.]
AYES.
 [11.48 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Holdsworth, H.
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Collindridge, F.
Kelly, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Fletoher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Foot, D. M.
Maxton, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, R. (Greenook)
Paling, W.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Poole, C. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.
Mr. Adamson and Mr. Anderson.




NOES.


Acand-Treyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Briseoe, Capt. R. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bernays, R. H.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)


Albery, Sir lrving
Bossom, A. C.
Bull, B. B.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Boulton, W. W.
Buteher, H. W.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Apsley, Lord
Boyee, H. Leslle
Carver, Major W. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)




Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Holmes, J. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Horsbrugh, Florenes
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Hunloke, H. P.
Rowlands, G.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hunter, T.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hutohinson, G. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cross, R. H.
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salmon, Sir I.


Davidson, Viscountess
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Scott, Lord William


De Chair, S. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Donner, P. W.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Loftus, P. C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Drewe, C.
Lyons, A. M.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
MasAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MoCorquodale, M. S.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Spens, W. P.


Ellis, Sir G.
McKie, J. H.
Storey, S.


Emery, J. F.
Magnay, T.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H, D. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Markham, S. F.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Errington, E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Fildes, Sir H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Findlay, Sir E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Fleming, E. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Touche, G. C.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Goldin, N. B.
Munro, P.
Turton, R. H.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Neven-Spenee, Major B. H. H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col Sir A. L. (Hull)


Grimston R. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Ward Irene, M. B. (Wallsend)


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Petherick, M.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Hambro, A. V.
Ramsbotham, H.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Hannah, I. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
wise, A. R.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)



Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reed, Sir H. S.(Aylesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Heneage,Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Mr. Furness and Sir James Edmonsdson.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)



Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, 1938, dated the twentieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twentieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

MILK (EXTENSION AND AMEND- MENT) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Elliot.]

11.56 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of Order. I submit to you very humbly, Mr. Speaker, that I rose when the Order for the Third Reading was read, because I wanted to make one or two observations on the Bill before it was read the Third time.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry I overlooked the hon. Member, but I have now col-

lected the voices, and the Third Reading has been carried.

FOOD AND DRUGS BILL [Lords].

11.57 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: On a point of Order. There is a somewhat unusual Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Health, to the effect that the proceedings of 12th July in relation to the Third Reading of the Food and Drugs Bill be null and void. No doubt an explanation will be forthcoming from my right hon. Friend, but in the meantime I shall be glad to know whether it is in order that a decision arrived at in this House yesterday should be rescinded
to-day.

Mr. Speaker: It is in order if the House chooses to do it. It is a matter for the House to decide, and the House can decide it in any way that it likes.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: Does not this open the way to a rather dangerous precedent? Suppose that, when the Third


Reading was carried, the Government had been defeated, would they still be in order on the following day in moving that the decision should be rescinded?

Mr. Speaker: A mistake has been made, and this is the only way in which it can be corrected. It would not be to the credit of the House to send out a Bill which was imperfect, and this is the only way to do it.

11.58 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): beg to move,
That the Proceedings [12th July] in relation to the Third Reading of the Food and Drugs Bill [Lords] be null and void.
I think that, especially in view of the question which has been raised, a word or two of explanation will be desirable. It will be within the memory of the House that the Food and Drugs Bill was considered in Committee last evening, and, by an unfortunate oversight, an Amendment which appeared on the Order Paper in my name, to leave out Sub-section (4) of Clause 103, was not brought before the Committee. The Sub-section in question runs as follows:
[(4) Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people, or vary the amount or incidence of, or otherwise alter, any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge.]
The House will be aware, of course, of the reason which led to the insertion in another place of this Sub-section, because the reason is set out in a note printed at the head of page 1 of the Bill, as follows:
[NOTE.—The words enclosed in brackets and underlined were inserted by the Lords to avoid questions of Privilege.]
It is, of course, unnecessary to remind the House that for the House of Lords to insert in a Bill provisions imposing or varying a charge on the people is a breach of the Privilege of this House, and to meet this difficulty two procedures have been devised. The more usual procedure is to indicate, by underlining or otherwise, each provision of the Bill which may impose or vary such a charge; but Measures of this kind—consolidation Bills with slight amendments—re-enact large masses of existing law with minor alterations, and consequently this device cannot be adopted, since it would be impracticable to specify the Clauses under which, in theory at least, some slight imposition or

alteration of a charge may occur. Hence the method has been devised of the House of Lords inserting a general provision on the lines of Clause 103, Sub-section (4), with the intention that it shall be moved out in the House of Commons. This is not a new procedure. It was adopted in the case of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill in 1935. It was also adopted for a Bill, the title of which will be familiar to both Oppositions—the Land Drainage Bill, 1930, which was introduced when a Labour Government was in office, as it so happened, by a former Minister of Health, the present Lord Addison, and supported by the Opposition. Therefore, this is not a new or unusual procedure, though it is not so often used as the procedure of underlining each specified instance.
The Departmental Committee prepared the Bill. I do not need to go again into the very thorough and long examination the Bill had, both by the Departmental Committee and the Joint Committee, and I do not need to go—nor could I—over any general arguments on the Bill. I merely thought it desirable to lay before the House the reason for the insertion of this Sub-section and the circumstances in which it was not removed, as it should have been, before the Bill left this House finally. I believe I am entitled to say that this was an oversight in procedure for which the Minister is not responsible. Therefore, I hope the House will adopt the admittedly somewhat unusual procedure which I have suggested to-night and allow the Bill to be re-committed, in order that we may move out the Subsection and the Bill may leave this House as a workable measure.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Alexander: As this has been quite a genuine mistake in procedure, I think the House would not wish to prevent the Minister from having the Bill re-committed in order that the matter may be put right. Therefore, one ought not to oppose the Motion. But I must say that I do not like to see the Minister bucking his responsibility. I should have thought that, however the procedure is devised, those who so well advise the Minister as a general rule would have probably given him a note pointing out that it was necessary to delete this Sub-section, and therefore the Minister ought to have seen that the deletion was made. In the circumstances, we should merely say


"Don't do it again," and proceed to recommit the Bill.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings [12th July] in relation to the Third Reading of the Food and Drugs Bill [Lords] be null and void.
Ordered,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Cornmittee of the Whole House in respect of Clause 103."—[Mr. Elliot.]
Bill considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 103.—(Short title, date of commencement and extent.)

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 81, line 39, to leave out Sub-section (4).

Mr. Alexander: Can we have some explanation?

Mr. Elliot: I am willing to give any further explanation the Committee desires. I thought I had done so to the best of my ability on the general Motion. As I have said, the Sub-section was inserted in order to avoid any breach of Privilege by the Lords, and it is now moved out because, without imposing any charge or varying its amount or incidence, the Bill would be meaningless. Therefore, it must be moved out in order that the will of the House expressed in previous Clauses can take effect. That is the reason why we are moving it out. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I would say that I take, of course, the full responsibility as Minister in charge of the Bill for directing the House, and I express my regret to the House for not having directed it properly last night.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Alexander: I am obliged to the Minister for the answer he has made. The Committee ought to know most specifically that a Bill which purports to be a consolidating Measure is, nevertheless, an amending Measure. But, apparently, it is necessary to leave out this form of words in order to avoid a breach of Privilege, because this Measure, as a con-

solidating Bill, increases the charge in a number of respects. I know that it would be out of order to discuss why and where these increased charges take place, but, although it is a consolidating Measure, it does increase the charge, and therefore we must remove any question of the House of Lords having supervision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; and, as amended on re-committal, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Lymm Urban District Council, which was presented on the 22nd day of June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
 That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Milford Haven Urban District Council, which was presented on the 24th day of June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Provost, Magistrates, and Councillors of the burgh of Kirkintilloch, which was presented on the 28th day of June and published, be approved."—[Mr. Cross.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.